ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

Tekst je pisala žena. 

i ne bilo koja žena već Camille Paglia, ultra poznata riba

jbt D, izigravaš tu neku feministikinju a nisi čitala Sexual Personae

prevedena je odavno

Da ne zamre ovaj topik, ima na ovom linku veoma zabavnih slika, a D. može da svedoči koliko su uobičajene:



http://www.dubaicoast.org/35-things-you-see-every-day-in-dubai/

Hehe, priznaj da bi voleo da usvojiš bar jednu od ovih cica-maca!

Pa, da imam nekakav suludo veliki ranč, svakako.

Jasno. Sumnjam da bi tvoje sadašnje komšije uživale u rici lavova. A morao bi da nabaviš i veću kutiju.

Ta, meni je ovde sve suludo. 


Ovaj potpuni, ali potpuni nedostatak duše, slobodnog duha, lepršavosti, umetnosti, zagledanosti u zvezde.


Ovo potpuno ignorisanje sloboda, prava, civilizacijskih tekovina, logike i pameti.


Ova površnost, opsednutost materijalnim (kolima, vilama, parama, zlatom, luksuzom), ovo licemerje, dvostruki standardi, diskriminacija.


Ne znam. Ja se, nekako, privikoh na ludilo, ali ove fotke umnogome su verodostojne. Dobiše ljudi pare, prebrzo i u kratkom roku. Ne stigoše ni da razumeju logiku modernog doba, a dobiše moderno doba.


Ja na poslu već dobih tri warninga, nijedan zbog tehničke greške na poslu.    Jedan od njih zbog "negative influence on others" za vreme nekog treninga, kada sam samo iznela svoje mišljenje. Potpuno ludilo. I još gore ludilo je što ove warninge daju stranci, menadžeri, pod izgovorom "to je njihova zemlja, šta ćeš".    Dakle, ovi iz "civilizovanijih" predela daju svoj puni doprinos ludilu.


Prodane duše - Britanci i Australijanci (mada su ovi drugi bolji), prodavci sopstvenih baba i guzica - Libanci, sebični i nekulturni preduzetnici Indijci i mazohisti Filipinci. I mi svi ostali između njih, uključujući i lokalce, koji su zaštićeni kao beli medvedi čak i od sopstvene logike i pameti, a kamoli od sopstvene realnosti.


Jednom rekoh nekom lokalcu "moja životna filozofija je...", a on me pita "šta je to filozofija". 


I tako sam dobila neki interni mejl o tome kako moram da dođem na neki trening za moj day off, inače "penalty applies". Ja se malo naljutih i napisah: "dear all, you don't give a shit about human and working rights...", a oni meni: "sve si tačno rekla i za sve si u pravu, al što si morala da napišeš reč "shit". Ja reko "zanemarite reč, to je moja kreativna sloboda, šta ćemo sa ljudskim i radničkim pravima?". No answer, just warnings. 


Ovo je jedno surovo mesto. No soul, no love, no art. Raj za prodane duše i kompleksaše koji bi da glume šefove (inače, ovde je staromodni menadžment stajl omiljen, jel: ko ne sluša, batina    ).

Pogotovo je verodostojan ovaj pogled sa skyscrapera.


A ove lokalke što bulje u devojku u beloj hajini, to je samo zato što i one planiraju da kupe istu takvu.   


Al šta ćeš, kad moraš da biraš između dva ludila, bar ostani u onom gde je sunce. Kol'ko možeš. Everything is shit, anyway. Be calm, give 'em a little trouble, and enjoy the ride.   


Al jedno tvrdim: ovo društvo je lišeno sloboda i logike, samo zahvaljujući prodanim evropskim i američkim guzicama, koji se u svojim zemljama nikada ne bi usudili na ono na šta se usuđuju ovde. Lokalci su dobrice. Samo malo priglupi.

Ako ništa drugo, kad nafta ode, i to društvo će sa njom...

Pa, kao, trude se oni da od Dubaija naprave ekonomski, biznis i turistički grad, da se obezbede kada nestane nafte. Al sve je naopako postavljeno. Mislim, ceo svet je sulud, ali ovo je na vrlo krhkim nogama jer su svi ovde došli samo da uzmu. Niko ništa ne daje.

Pa, to, nemaju oni osećaj za to kako se biznis izvodi. Norvežani da dobiju na korišćenje Dubai na 20 godina, da od njega naprave održivi raj!!!

Šta bi tačno pravili? Fjordove?

Blagostanje! Blagostanje bi pravili.

Pa, Dubajci su već u blagostanju.

Možda bi napravili 01, samo s ljudima... za početak

Što ne naprave u Norveškoj? Bože, šta vama pada na pamet! Pre 40 godina su bili kitolovci, posle su pecali bakalare i haringe, a sad im dogmizale i kraljevske krabe koje su zapatili Rusi za svoje potrebe.

Quote from: scallop on 24-06-2014, 23:30:57
Pa, Dubajci su već u blagostanju.

O, ne. Nisu. Dubajci su samo u pohlepi i materijalizmu. Nema svesti kao što ima u Severnoj Evropi, očito. Ovde se gađaju "održivim"terminima, pokušavaju da uvedu standarde, ali džabe. Pola Azije je došlo ovde samo da zarade crkavicu da prehrane svoje porodice, a pola Zapada je došlo samo da pokupi pare i vrati se kući, pre nego što ih sunce sprži.


Blagostanje u Dubaiju je dobar public image, reklama. Ništa više.


Komparacije radi:


Dubai:

Quote
A snippet of an article about Dubai from the Independent:


There are three different Dubais, all swirling around each other. There are the expats, there are the Emiratis, headed by Sheikh Mohammed; and then there is the foreign underclass who built the city, and are trapped here. They are hidden in plain view. You see them everywhere, in dirt-caked blue uniforms, being shouted at by their superiors, like a chain gang – but you are trained not to look. It is like a mantra: the Sheikh built the city. The Sheikh built the city. Workers? What workers?


Every evening, the hundreds of thousands of young men who build Dubai are bussed from their sites to a vast concrete wasteland an hour out of town, where they are quarantined away. Until a few years ago they were shuttled back and forth on cattle trucks, but the expats complained this was unsightly, so now they are shunted on small metal buses that function like greenhouses in the desert heat. They sweat like sponges being slowly wrung out.


Sonapur is a rubble-strewn patchwork of miles and miles of identical concrete buildings. Some 300,000 men live piled up here, in a place whose name in Hindi means "City of Gold". In the first camp I stop at – riven with the smell of sewage and sweat – the men huddle around, eager to tell someone, anyone, what is happening to them.


Sahinal Monir, a slim 24-year-old from the deltas of Bangladesh. "To get you here, they tell you Dubai is heaven. Then you get here and realise it is hell," he says. Four years ago, an employment agent arrived in Sahinal's village in Southern Bangladesh. He told the men of the village that there was a place where they could earn 40,000 takka a month (£400) just for working nine-to-five on construction projects. It was a place where they would be given great accommodation, great food, and treated well. All they had to do was pay an up-front fee of 220,000 takka (£2,300) for the work visa – a fee they'd pay off in the first six months, easy. So Sahinal sold his family land, and took out a loan from the local lender, to head to this paradise.


As soon as he arrived at Dubai airport, his passport was taken from him by his construction company. He has not seen it since. He was told brusquely that from now on he would be working 14-hour days in the desert heat – where western tourists are advised not to stay outside for even five minutes in summer, when it hits 55 degrees – for 500 dirhams a month (£90), less than a quarter of the wage he was promised. If you don't like it, the company told him, go home. "But how can I go home? You have my passport, and I have no money for the ticket," he said. "Well, then you'd better get to work," they replied.


Sahinal was in a panic. His family back home – his son, daughter, wife and parents – were waiting for money, excited that their boy had finally made it. But he was going to have to work for more than two years just to pay for the cost of getting here – and all to earn less than he did in Bangladesh.


He shows me his room. It is a tiny, poky, concrete cell with triple-decker bunk-beds, where he lives with 11 other men. All his belongings are piled onto his bunk: three shirts, a spare pair of trousers, and a cellphone. The room stinks, because the lavatories in the corner of the camp – holes in the ground – are backed up with excrement and clouds of black flies. There is no air conditioning or fans, so the heat is "unbearable. You cannot sleep. All you do is sweat and scratch all night." At the height of summer, people sleep on the floor, on the roof, anywhere where they can pray for a moment of breeze.


The water delivered to the camp in huge white containers isn't properly desalinated: it tastes of salt. "It makes us sick, but we have nothing else to drink," he says.


The work is "the worst in the world," he says. "You have to carry 50kg bricks and blocks of cement in the worst heat imaginable ... This heat – it is like nothing else. You sweat so much you can't pee, not for days or weeks. It's like all the liquid comes out through your skin and you stink. You become dizzy and sick but you aren't allowed to stop, except for an hour in the afternoon. You know if you drop anything or slip, you could die. If you take time off sick, your wages are docked, and you are trapped here even longer."
He is currently working on the 67th floor of a shiny new tower, where he builds upwards, into the sky, into the heat. He doesn't know its name. In his four years here, he has never seen the Dubai of tourist-fame, except as he constructs it floor-by-floor.
Is he angry? He is quiet for a long time. "Here, nobody shows their anger. You can't. You get put in jail for a long time, then deported." Last year, some workers went on strike after they were not given their wages for four months. The Dubai police surrounded their camps with razor-wire and water-cannons and blasted them out and back to work.


The "ringleaders" were imprisoned. I try a different question: does Sohinal regret coming? All the men look down, awkwardly. "How can we think about that? We are trapped. If we start to think about regrets..." He lets the sentence trail off. Eventually, another worker breaks the silence by adding: "I miss my country, my family and my land. We can grow food in Bangladesh. Here, nothing grows. Just oil and buildings."


Since the recession hit, they say, the electricity has been cut off in dozens of the camps, and the men have not been paid for months. Their companies have disappeared with their passports and their pay. "We have been robbed of everything. Even if somehow we get back to Bangladesh, the loan sharks will demand we repay our loans immediately, and when we can't, we'll be sent to prison."
This is all supposed to be illegal. Employers are meant to pay on time, never take your passport, give you breaks in the heat – but I met nobody who said it happens. Not one. These men are conned into coming and trapped into staying, with the complicity of the Dubai authorities.


Sahinal could well die out here. A British man who used to work on construction projects told me: "There's a huge number of suicides in the camps and on the construction sites, but they're not reported. They're described as 'accidents'." Even then, their families aren't free: they simply inherit the debts. A Human Rights Watch study found there is a "cover-up of the true extent" of deaths from heat exhaustion, overwork and suicide, but the Indian consulate registered 971 deaths of their nationals in 2005 alone. After this figure was leaked, the consulates were told to stop counting.


At night, in the dusk, I sit in the camp with Sohinal and his friends as they scrape together what they have left to buy a cheap bottle of spirits. They down it in one ferocious gulp. "It helps you to feel numb", Sohinal says through a stinging throat.


In the distance, the glistening Dubai skyline he built stands, oblivious

Severna Evropa:

QuoteGUESS WHICH COUNTRY DOES THE MOST GOOD FOR THE PLANET?

http://ideas.ted.com/2014/06/23/guess-which-country-does-the-most-good-for-the-planet/

Blago se tebi: http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Svet/478679/Ovo-ce-biti-najveci-trzni-centar-na-svetu-a-gradi-ga

D. možda nije fizički sa nama (ili, er, virtuelno), ali ne znači da nam nije u mislima. Ovaj tekst je zanimljiv, jer potvrđuje ono to i inače znamo - da smo najubeđeniji da znamo šta pričamo baš kad su u pitanju stvari koje zapravo ne poznajemo dovoljno. Neću ovim da sugerišem da je D. egzemplar ovakvog ponašanja jer Alah zna da sam i sam nebrojeno puta počinio ovj grijeh. I činim ga ponovljeno, naravno:


We Are All Confident Idiots

QuoteBy David Dunning • October 27, 2014 • 4:00 AM                           



The trouble with ignorance is that it feels so much like expertise. A leading researcher on the psychology of human wrongness sets us straight.



Last March, during the enormous South by Southwest music festival in Austin, Texas, the late-night talk show Jimmy Kimmel Live! sent a camera crew out into the streets to catch hipsters bluffing. "People who go to music festivals pride themselves on knowing who the next acts are," Kimmel said to his studio audience, "even if they don't actually know who the new acts are." So the host had his crew ask festival-goers for their thoughts about bands that don't exist.
"The big buzz on the street," said one of Kimmel's interviewers to a man wearing thick-framed glasses and a whimsical T-shirt, "is Contact Dermatitis. Do you think he has what it takes to really make it to the big time?"
"Absolutely," came the dazed fan's reply.
The prank was an installment of Kimmel's recurring "Lie Witness News" feature, which involves asking pedestrians a variety of questions with false premises. In another episode, Kimmel's crew asked people on Hollywood Boulevard whether they thought the 2014 film Godzilla was insensitive to survivors of the 1954 giant lizard attack on Tokyo; in a third, they asked whether Bill Clinton gets enough credit for ending the Korean War, and whether his appearance as a judge on America's Got Talent would damage his legacy. "No," said one woman to this last question. "It will make him even more popular."
One can't help but feel for the people who fall into Kimmel's trap. Some appear willing to say just about anything on camera to hide their cluelessness about the subject at hand (which, of course, has the opposite effect). Others seem eager to please, not wanting to let the interviewer down by giving the most boringly appropriate response: I don't know. But for some of these interviewees, the trap may be an even deeper one. The most confident-sounding respondents often seem to think they do have some clue—as if there is some fact, some memory, or some intuition that assures them their answer is reasonable.
At one point during South by Southwest, Kimmel's crew approached a poised young woman with brown hair. "What have you heard about Tonya and the Hardings?" the interviewer asked. "Have you heard they're kind of hard-hitting?" Failing to pick up on this verbal wink, the woman launched into an elaborate response about the fictitious band. "Yeah, a lot of men have been talking about them, saying they're really impressed," she replied. "They're usually not fans of female groups, but they're really making a statement." From some mental gossamer, she was able to spin an authoritative review of Tonya and the Hardings incorporating certain detailed facts: that they're real; that they're female (never mind that, say, Marilyn Manson and Alice Cooper aren't); and that they're a tough, boundary-breaking group.


To be sure, Kimmel's producers must cherry-pick the most laughable interviews to put the air. But late-night TV is not the only place where one can catch people extemporizing on topics they know nothing about. In the more solemn confines of a research lab at Cornell University, the psychologists Stav Atir, Emily Rosenzweig, and I carry out ongoing research that amounts to a carefully controlled, less flamboyant version of Jimmy Kimmel's bit. In our work, we ask survey respondents if they are familiar with certain technical concepts from physics, biology, politics, and geography. A fair number claim familiarity with genuine terms like centripetal force and photon. But interestingly, they also claim some familiarity with concepts that are entirely made up, such as the plates of parallax, ultra-lipid, and cholarine. In one study, roughly 90 percent claimed some knowledge of at least one of the nine fictitious concepts we asked them about. In fact, the more well versed respondents considered themselves in a general topic, the more familiarity they claimed with the meaningless terms associated with it in the survey.
It's odd to see people who claim political expertise assert their knowledge of both Susan Rice (the national security adviser to President Barack Obama) and Michael Merrington (a pleasant-sounding string of syllables). But it's not that surprising. For more than 20 years, I have researched people's understanding of their own expertise—formally known as the study of metacognition, the processes by which human beings evaluate and regulate their knowledge, reasoning, and learning—and the results have been consistently sobering, occasionally comical, and never dull.
The American author and aphorist William Feather once wrote that being educated means "being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't." As it turns out, this simple ideal is extremely hard to achieve. Although what we know is often perceptible to us, even the broad outlines of what we don't know are all too often completely invisible. To a great degree, we fail to recognize the frequency and scope of our ignorance.
In 1999, in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, my then graduate student Justin Kruger and I published a paper that documented how, in many areas of life, incompetent people do not recognize—scratch that, cannot recognize—just how incompetent they are, a phenomenon that has come to be known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. Logic itself almost demands this lack of self-insight: For poor performers to recognize their ineptitude would require them to possess the very expertise they lack. To know how skilled or unskilled you are at using the rules of grammar, for instance, you must have a good working knowledge of those rules, an impossibility among the incompetent. Poor performers—and we are all poor performers at some things—fail to see the flaws in their thinking or the answers they lack.
What's curious is that, in many cases, incompetence does not leave people disoriented, perplexed, or cautious. Instead, the incompetent are often blessed with an inappropriate confidence, buoyed by something that feels to them like knowledge.
This isn't just an armchair theory. A whole battery of studies conducted by myself and others have confirmed that people who don't know much about a given set of cognitive, technical, or social skills tend to grossly overestimate their prowess and performance, whether it's grammar, emotional intelligence, logical reasoning, firearm care and safety, debating, or financial knowledge. College students who hand in exams that will earn them Ds and Fs tend to think their efforts will be worthy of far higher grades; low-performing chess players, bridge players, and medical students, and elderly people applying for a renewed driver's license, similarly overestimate their competence by a long shot.
Occasionally, one can even see this tendency at work in the broad movements of history. Among its many causes, the 2008 financial meltdown was precipitated by the collapse of an epic housing bubble stoked by the machinations of financiers and the ignorance of consumers. And recent research suggests that many Americans' financial ignorance is of the inappropriately confident variety. In 2012, the National Financial Capability Study, conducted by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (with the U.S. Treasury), asked roughly 25,000 respondents to rate their own financial knowledge, and then went on to measure their actual financial literacy.


The roughly 800 respondents who said they had filed bankruptcy within the previous two years performed fairly dismally on the test—in the 37th percentile, on average. But they rated their overall financial knowledge more, not less, positively than other respondents did. The difference was slight, but it was beyond a statistical doubt: 23 percent of the recently bankrupted respondents gave themselves the highest possible self-rating; among the rest, only 13 percent did so. Why the self-confidence? Like Jimmy Kimmel's victims, bankrupted respondents were particularly allergic to saying "I don't know." Pointedly, when getting a question wrong, they were 67 percent more likely to endorse a falsehood than their peers were. Thus, with a head full of "knowledge," they considered their financial literacy to be just fine.
Because it's so easy to judge the idiocy of others, it may be sorely tempting to think this doesn't apply to you. But the problem of unrecognized ignorance is one that visits us all. And over the years, I've become convinced of one key, overarching fact about the ignorant mind. One should not think of it as uninformed. Rather, one should think of it as misinformed.
An ignorant mind is precisely not a spotless, empty vessel, but one that's filled with the clutter of irrelevant or misleading life experiences, theories, facts, intuitions, strategies, algorithms, heuristics, metaphors, and hunches that regrettably have the look and feel of useful and accurate knowledge. This clutter is an unfortunate by-product of one of our greatest strengths as a species. We are unbridled pattern recognizers and profligate theorizers. Often, our theories are good enough to get us through the day, or at least to an age when we can procreate. But our genius for creative storytelling, combined with our inability to detect our own ignorance, can sometimes lead to situations that are embarrassing, unfortunate, or downright dangerous—especially in a technologically advanced, complex democratic society that occasionally invests mistaken popular beliefs with immense destructive power (See: crisis, financial; war, Iraq). As the humorist Josh Billings once put it, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." (Ironically, one thing many people "know" about this quote is that it was first uttered by Mark Twain or Will Rogers—which just ain't so.)
Because of the way we are built, and because of the way we learn from our environment, we are all engines of misbelief. And the better we understand how our wonderful yet kludge-ridden, Rube Goldberg engine works, the better we—as individuals and as a society—can harness it to navigate toward a more objective understanding of the truth.
BORN WRONG Some of our deepest intuitions about the world go all the way back to our cradles. Before their second birthday, babies know that two solid objects cannot co-exist in the same space. They know that objects continue to exist when out of sight, and fall if left unsupported. They know that people can get up and move around as autonomous beings, but that the computer sitting on the desk cannot. But not all of our earliest intuitions are so sound.
Very young children also carry misbeliefs that they will harbor, to some degree, for the rest of their lives. Their thinking, for example, is marked by a strong tendency to falsely ascribe intentions, functions, and purposes to organisms. In a child's mind, the most important biological aspect of a living thing is the role it plays in the realm of all life. Asked why tigers exist, children will emphasize that they were "made for being in a zoo." Asked why trees produce oxygen, children say they do so to allow animals to breathe.


Any conventional biology or natural science education will attempt to curb this propensity for purpose-driven reasoning. But it never really leaves us. Adults with little formal education show a similar bias. And, when rushed, even professional scientists start making purpose-driven mistakes. The Boston University psychologist Deborah Kelemen and some colleagues demonstrated this in a study that involved asking 80 scientists—people with university jobs in geoscience, chemistry, and physics—to evaluate 100 different statements about "why things happen" in the natural world as true or false. Sprinkled among the explanations were false purpose-driven ones, such as "Moss forms around rocks in order to stop soil erosion" and "The Earth has an ozone layer in order to protect it from UV light." Study participants were allowed either to work through the task at their own speed, or given only 3.2 seconds to respond to each item. Rushing the scientists caused them to double their endorsements of false purpose-driven explanations, from 15 to 29 percent.
This purpose-driven misconception wreaks particular havoc on attempts to teach one of the most important concepts in modern science: evolutionary theory. Even laypeople who endorse the theory often believe a false version of it. They ascribe a level of agency and organization to evolution that is just not there. If you ask many laypeople their understanding of why, say, cheetahs can run so fast, they will explain it's because the cats surmised, almost as a group, that they could catch more prey if they could just run faster, and so they acquired the attribute and passed it along to their cubs. Evolution, in this view, is essentially a game of species-level strategy.
This idea of evolution misses the essential role played by individual differences and competition between members of a species in response to environmental pressures: Individual cheetahs who can run faster catch more prey, live longer, and reproduce more successfully; slower cheetahs lose out, and die out—leaving the species to drift toward becoming faster overall. Evolution is the result of random differences and natural selection, not agency or choice.
But belief in the "agency" model of evolution is hard to beat back. While educating people about evolution can indeed lead them from being uninformed to being well informed, in some stubborn instances it also moves them into the confidently misinformed category. In 2014, Tony Yates and Edmund Marek published a study that tracked the effect of high school biology classes on 536 Oklahoma high school students' understanding of evolutionary theory. The students were rigorously quizzed on their knowledge of evolution before taking introductory biology, and then again just afterward. Not surprisingly, the students' confidence in their knowledge of evolutionary theory shot up after instruction, and they endorsed a greater number of accurate statements. So far, so good.
The trouble is that the number of misconceptions the group endorsed also shot up. For example, instruction caused the percentage of students strongly agreeing with the true statement "Evolution cannot cause an organism's traits to change during its lifetime" to rise from 17 to 20 percent—but it also caused those strongly disagreeing to rise from 16 to 19 percent. In response to the likewise true statement "Variation among individuals is important for evolution to occur," exposure to instruction produced an increase in strong agreement from 11 to 22 percent, but strong disagreement also rose from nine to 12 percent. Tellingly, the only response that uniformly went down after instruction was "I don't know."
And it's not just evolution that bedevils students. Again and again, research has found that conventional educational practices largely fail to eradicate a number of our cradle-born misbeliefs. Education fails to correct people who believe that vision is made possible only because the eye emits some energy or substance into the environment. It fails to correct common intuitions about the trajectory of falling objects. And it fails to disabuse students of the idea that light and heat act under the same laws as material substances. What education often does appear to do, however, is imbue us with confidence in the errors we retain.
MISAPPLIED RULES Imagine that the illustration below represents a curved tube lying horizontally on a table:


(ovde ide slika koju me mrzi da kačim, kliknuti na link za originalni tekst gore)


In a study of intuitive physics in 2013, Elanor Williams, Justin Kruger, and I presented people with several variations on this curved-tube image and asked them to identify the trajectory a ball would take (marked A, B, or C in the illustration) after it had traveled through each. Some people got perfect scores, and seemed to know it, being quite confident in their answers. Some people did a bit less well—and, again, seemed to know it, as their confidence was much more muted.
But something curious started happening as we began to look at the people who did extremely badly on our little quiz. By now, you may be able to predict it: These people expressed more, not less, confidence in their performance. In fact, people who got none of the items right often expressed confidence that matched that of the top performers. Indeed, this study produced the most dramatic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect we had ever seen: When looking only at the confidence of people getting 100 percent versus zero percent right, it was often impossible to tell who was in which group.


Why? Because both groups "knew something." They knew there was a rigorous, consistent rule that a person should follow to predict the balls' trajectories. One group knew the right Newtonian principle: that the ball would continue in the direction it was going the instant it left the tube—Path B. Freed of the tube's constraint, it would just go straight.
People who got every item wrong typically answered that the ball would follow Path A. Essentially, their rule was that the tube would impart some curving impetus to the trajectory of the ball, which it would continue to follow upon its exit. This answer is demonstrably incorrect—but a plurality of people endorse it.
These people are in good company. In 1500 A.D., Path A would have been the accepted answer among sophisticates with an interest in physics. Both Leonardo da Vinci and French philosopher Jean Buridan endorsed it. And it does make some sense. A theory of curved impetus would explain common, everyday puzzles, such as why wheels continue to rotate even after someone stops pushing the cart, or why the planets continue their tight and regular orbits around the sun. With those problems "explained," it's an easy step to transfer this explanation to other problems like those involving tubes.
What this study illustrates is another general way—in addition to our cradle-born errors—in which humans frequently generate misbeliefs: We import knowledge from appropriate settings into ones where it is inappropriate.
Here's another example: According to Pauline Kim, a professor at Washington University Law School, people tend to make inferences about the law based on what they know about more informal social norms. This frequently leads them to misunderstand their rights—and in areas like employment law, to wildly overestimate them. In 1997, Kim presented roughly 300 residents of Buffalo, New York, with a series of morally abhorrent workplace scenarios—for example, an employee is fired for reporting that a co-worker has been stealing from the company—that were nonetheless legal under the state's "at-will" employment regime. Eighty to 90 percent of the Buffalonians incorrectly identified each of these distasteful scenarios as illegal, revealing how little they understood about how much freedom employers actually enjoy to fire employees. (Why does this matter? Legal scholars had long defended "at-will" employment rules on the grounds that employees consent to them in droves without seeking better terms of employment. What Kim showed was that employees seldom understand what they're consenting to.)
Doctors, too, are quite familiar with the problem of inappropriately transferred knowledge in their dealings with patients. Often, it's not the medical condition itself that a physician needs to defeat as much as patient misconceptions that protect it. Elderly patients, for example, frequently refuse to follow a doctor's advice to exercise to alleviate pain—one of the most effective strategies available—because the physical soreness and discomfort they feel when they exercise is something they associate with injury and deterioration. Research by the behavioral economist Sendhil Mullainathan has found that mothers in India often withhold water from infants with diarrhea because they mistakenly conceive of their children as leaky buckets—rather than as increasingly dehydrated creatures in desperate need of water.
MOTIVATED REASONING Some of our most stubborn misbeliefs arise not from primitive childlike intuitions or careless category errors, but from the very values and philosophies that define who we are as individuals. Each of us possesses certain foundational beliefs—narratives about the self, ideas about the social order—that essentially cannot be violated: To contradict them would call into question our very self-worth. As such, these views demand fealty from other opinions. And any information that we glean from the world is amended, distorted, diminished, or forgotten in order to make sure that these sacrosanct beliefs remain whole and unharmed.


One very commonly held sacrosanct belief, for example, goes something like this: I am a capable, good, and caring person. Any information that contradicts this premise is liable to meet serious mental resistance. Political and ideological beliefs, too, often cross over into the realm of the sacrosanct. The anthropological theory of cultural cognition suggests that people everywhere tend to sort ideologically into cultural worldviews diverging along a couple of axes: They are either individualist (favoring autonomy, freedom, and self-reliance) or communitarian (giving more weight to benefits and costs borne by the entire community); and they are either hierarchist (favoring the distribution of social duties and resources along a fixed ranking of status) or egalitarian (dismissing the very idea of ranking people according to status). According to the theory of cultural cognition, humans process information in a way that not only reflects these organizing principles, but also reinforces them. These ideological anchor points can have a profound and wide-ranging impact on what people believe, and even on what they "know" to be true.
It is perhaps not so surprising to hear that facts, logic, and knowledge can be bent to accord with a person's subjective worldview; after all, we accuse our political opponents of this kind of "motivated reasoning" all the time. But the extent of this bending can be remarkable. In ongoing work with the political scientist Peter Enns, my lab has found that a person's politics can warp other sets of logical or factual beliefs so much that they come into direct contradiction with one another. In a survey of roughly 500 Americans conducted in late 2010, we found that over a quarter of liberals (but only six percent of conservatives) endorsed both the statement "President Obama's policies have already created a strong revival in the economy" and "Statutes and regulations enacted by the previous Republican presidential administration have made a strong economic recovery impossible." Both statements are pleasing to the liberal eye and honor a liberal ideology, but how can Obama have already created a strong recovery that Republican policies have rendered impossible? Among conservatives, 27 percent (relative to just 10 percent of liberals) agreed both that "President Obama's rhetorical skills are elegant but are insufficient to influence major international issues" and that "President Obama has not done enough to use his rhetorical skills to effect regime change in Iraq." But if Obama's skills are insufficient, why should he be criticized for not using them to influence the Iraqi government?
Sacrosanct ideological commitments can also drive us to develop quick, intense opinions on topics we know virtually nothing about—topics that, on their face, have nothing to do with ideology. Consider the emerging field of nanotechnology. Nanotech, loosely defined, involves the fabrication of products at the atomic or molecular level that have applications in medicine, energy production, biomaterials, and electronics. Like pretty much any new technology, nanotech carries the promise of great benefit (antibacterial food containers!) and the risk of serious downsides (nano-surveillance technology!).
In 2006, Daniel Kahan, a professor at Yale Law School, performed a study together with some colleagues on public perceptions of nanotechnology. They found, as other surveys had before, that most people knew little to nothing about the field. They also found that ignorance didn't stop people from opining about whether nanotechnology's risks outweighed its benefits.
When Kahan surveyed uninformed respondents, their opinions were all over the map. But when he gave another group of respondents a very brief, meticulously balanced description of the promises and perils of nanotech, the remarkable gravitational pull of deeply held sacrosanct beliefs became apparent. With just two paragraphs of scant (though accurate) information to go on, people's views of nanotechnology split markedly—and aligned with their overall worldviews. Hierarchics/individualists found themselves viewing nanotechnology more favorably. Egalitarians/collectivists took the opposite stance, insisting that nanotechnology has more potential for harm than good.
Why would this be so? Because of underlying beliefs. Hierarchists, who are favorably disposed to people in authority, may respect industry and scientific leaders who trumpet the unproven promise of nanotechnology. Egalitarians, on the other hand, may fear that the new technology could present an advantage that conveys to only a few people. And collectivists might worry that nanotechnology firms will pay insufficient heed to their industry's effects on the environment and public health. Kahan's conclusion: If two paragraphs of text are enough to send people on a glide path to polarization, simply giving members of the public more information probably won't help them arrive at a shared, neutral understanding of the facts; it will just reinforce their biased views.


One might think that opinions about an esoteric technology would be hard to come by. Surely, to know whether nanotech is a boon to humankind or a step toward doomsday would require some sort of knowledge about materials science, engineering, industry structure, regulatory issues, organic chemistry, surface science, semiconductor physics, microfabrication, and molecular biology. Every day, however, people rely on the cognitive clutter in their minds—whether it's an ideological reflex, a misapplied theory, or a cradle-born intuition—to answer technical, political, and social questions they have little or no direct expertise in. We are never all that far from Tonya and the Hardings.
SEEING THROUGH THE CLUTTER Unfortunately for all of us, policies and decisions that are founded on ignorance have a strong tendency, sooner or later, to blow up in one's face. So how can policymakers, teachers, and the rest of us cut through all the counterfeit knowledge—our own and our neighbors'—that stands in the way of our ability to make truly informed judgments?
The way we traditionally conceive of ignorance—as an absence of knowledge—leads us to think of education as its natural antidote. But education, even when done skillfully, can produce illusory confidence. Here's a particularly frightful example: Driver's education courses, particularly those aimed at handling emergency maneuvers, tend to increase, rather than decrease, accident rates. They do so because training people to handle, say, snow and ice leaves them with the lasting impression that they're permanent experts on the subject. In fact, their skills usually erode rapidly after they leave the course. And so, months or even decades later, they have confidence but little leftover competence when their wheels begin to spin.
In cases like this, the most enlightened approach, as proposed by Swedish researcher Nils Petter Gregersen, may be to avoid teaching such skills at all. Instead of training drivers how to negotiate icy conditions, Gregersen suggests, perhaps classes should just convey their inherent danger—they should scare inexperienced students away from driving in winter conditions in the first place, and leave it at that.
But, of course, guarding people from their own ignorance by sheltering them from the risks of life is seldom an option. Actually getting people to part with their misbeliefs is a far trickier, far more important task. Luckily, a science is emerging, led by such scholars as Stephan Lewandowsky at the University of Bristol and Ullrich Ecker of the University of Western Australia, that could help.
In the classroom, some of best techniques for disarming misconceptions are essentially variations on the Socratic method. To eliminate the most common misbeliefs, the instructor can open a lesson with them—and then show students the explanatory gaps those misbeliefs leave yawning or the implausible conclusions they lead to. For example, an instructor might start a discussion of evolution by laying out the purpose-driven evolutionary fallacy, prompting the class to question it. (How do species just magically know what advantages they should develop to confer to their offspring? How do they manage to decide to work as a group?) Such an approach can make the correct theory more memorable when it's unveiled, and can prompt general improvements in analytical skills.


Then, of course, there is the problem of rampant misinformation in places that, unlike classrooms, are hard to control—like the Internet and news media. In these Wild West settings, it's best not to repeat common misbeliefs at all. Telling people that Barack Obama is not a Muslim fails to change many people's minds, because they frequently remember everything that was said—except for the crucial qualifier "not." Rather, to successfully eradicate a misbelief requires not only removing the misbelief, but filling the void left behind ("Obama was baptized in 1988 as a member of the United Church of Christ"). If repeating the misbelief is absolutely necessary, researchers have found it helps to provide clear and repeated warnings that the misbelief is false. I repeat, false.
The most difficult misconceptions to dispel, of course, are those that reflect sacrosanct beliefs. And the truth is that often these notions can't be changed. Calling a sacrosanct belief into question calls the entire self into question, and people will actively defend views they hold dear. This kind of threat to a core belief, however, can sometimes be alleviated by giving people the chance to shore up their identity elsewhere. Researchers have found that asking people to describe aspects of themselves that make them proud, or report on values they hold dear, can make any incoming threat seem, well, less threatening.
For example, in a study conducted by Geoffrey Cohen, David Sherman, and other colleagues, self-described American patriots were more receptive to the claims of a report critical of U.S. foreign policy if, beforehand, they wrote an essay about an important aspect of themselves, such as their creativity, sense of humor, or family, and explained why this aspect was particularly meaningful to them. In a second study, in which pro-choice college students negotiated over what federal abortion policy should look like, participants made more concessions to restrictions on abortion after writing similar self-affirmative essays.
Sometimes, too, researchers have found that sacrosanct beliefs themselves can be harnessed to persuade a subject to reconsider a set of facts with less prejudice. For example, conservatives tend not to endorse policies that preserve the environment as much as liberals do. But conservatives do care about issues that involve "purity" in thought, deed, and reality. Casting environmental protection as a chance to preserve the purity of the Earth causes conservatives to favor those policies much more, as research by Matthew Feinberg and Robb Willer of Stanford University suggests. In a similar vein, liberals can be persuaded to raise military spending if such a policy is linked to progressive values like fairness and equity beforehand—by, for instance, noting that the military offers recruits a way out of poverty, or that military promotion standards apply equally to all.
But here is the real challenge: How can we learn to recognize our own ignorance and misbeliefs? To begin with, imagine that you are part of a small group that needs to make a decision about some matter of importance. Behavioral scientists often recommend that small groups appoint someone to serve as a devil's advocate—a person whose job is to question and criticize the group's logic. While this approach can prolong group discussions, irritate the group, and be uncomfortable, the decisions that groups ultimately reach are usually more accurate and more solidly grounded than they otherwise would be.
For individuals, the trick is to be your own devil's advocate: to think through how your favored conclusions might be misguided; to ask yourself how you might be wrong, or how things might turn out differently from what you expect. It helps to try practicing what the psychologist Charles Lord calls "considering the opposite." To do this, I often imagine myself in a future in which I have turned out to be wrong in a decision, and then consider what the likeliest path was that led to my failure. And lastly: Seek advice. Other people may have their own misbeliefs, but a discussion can often be sufficient to rid a serious person of his or her most egregious misconceptions.
CIVICS FOR ENLIGHTENED DUMMIES In an edition of "Lie Witness News" last January, Jimmy Kimmel's cameras decamped to the streets of Los Angeles the day before President Barack Obama was scheduled to give his annual State of the Union address. Interviewees were asked about John Boehner's nap during the speech and the moment at the end when Obama faked a heart attack. Reviews of the fictitious speech ranged from "awesome" to "powerful" to just "all right." As usual, the producers had no trouble finding people who were willing to hold forth on events they couldn't know anything about.
American comedians like Kimmel and Jay Leno have a long history of lampooning their countrymen's ignorance, and American scolds have a long history of lamenting it. Every few years, for at least the past century, various groups of serious-minded citizens have conducted studies of civic literacy—asking members of the public about the nation's history and governance—and held up the results as cause for grave concern over cultural decline and decay. In 1943, after a survey of 7,000 college freshmen found that only six percent could identify the original 13 colonies (with some believing that Abraham Lincoln, "our first president," "emaciated the slaves"), the New York Times lamented the nation's "appallingly ignorant" youth. In 2002, after a national test of fourth, eighth, and 12th graders produced similar results, the Weekly Standard pronounced America's students "dumb as rocks."


In 2008, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute surveyed 2,508 Americans and found that 20 percent of them think the electoral college "trains those aspiring for higher political office" or "was established to supervise the first televised presidential debates." Alarms were again raised about the decline of civic literacy. Ironically, as Stanford historian Sam Wineburg has written, people who lament America's worsening ignorance of its own history are themselves often blind to how many before them have made the exact same lament; a look back suggests not a falling off from some baseline of American greatness, but a fairly constant level of clumsiness with the facts.
The impulse to worry over all these flubbed answers does make a certain amount of sense given that the subject is civics. "The questions that stumped so many students," lamented Secretary of Education Rod Paige after a 2001 test, "involve the most fundamental concepts of our democracy, our growth as a nation, and our role in the world." One implicit, shame-faced question seems to be: What would the Founding Fathers think of these benighted descendants?
But I believe we already know what the Founding Fathers would think. As good citizens of the Enlightenment, they valued recognizing the limits of one's knowledge at least as much as they valued retaining a bunch of facts. Thomas Jefferson, lamenting the quality of political journalism in his day, once observed that a person who avoided newspapers would be better informed than a daily reader, in that someone "who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors." Benjamin Franklin wrote that "a learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one." Another quote sometimes attributed to Franklin has it that "the doorstep to the temple of wisdom is a knowledge of our own ignorance."
The built-in features of our brains, and the life experiences we accumulate, do in fact fill our heads with immense knowledge; what they do not confer is insight into the dimensions of our ignorance. As such, wisdom may not involve facts and formulas so much as the ability to recognize when a limit has been reached. Stumbling through all our cognitive clutter just to recognize a true "I don't know" may not constitute failure as much as it does an enviable success, a crucial signpost that shows us we are traveling in the right direction toward the truth.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 30-10-2014, 10:54:32
da smo najubeđeniji da znamo šta pričamo baš kad su u pitanju stvari koje zapravo ne poznajemo dovoljno.

pa zar postoji bolji trenutak za naduvenost nego tada?

Nauka kaže da ne postoji.  Mada ja vrlo slabo razabiram nauku, naravno.

 Why Do We Blame Victims?

Quote
In October, Jonathan Martin, a football player on the Miami Dolphins, left the team due to mistreatment from teammates, which included receiving threatening phone messages from another player. The incident has raised concerns about hazing within the NFL, but it has also prompted some to suggest that Martin himself bears at least partial responsibility for his fate. For example, another NFL player stated in an interview that Martin is "just as much to blame because he allowed it to happen" and should have behaved like a man. Others have argued that Martin was oversensitive and made himself an easy target.


This sort of victim blaming is not unique to bullying cases. It can be seen when rape victims' sexual histories are dissected, when people living in poverty are viewed as lazy and unmotivated, when those suffering from mental or physical illness are presumed to have invited disease through poor lifestyle choices. There are cases where victims may indeed hold some responsibility for their misfortunate, but all too often this responsibility is overblown and other factors are discounted. Why are we so eager to blame victims, even when we have seemingly nothing to gain?
Victim blaming is not just about avoiding culpability—it's also about avoiding vulnerability. The more innocent a victim, the more threatening they are. Victims threaten our sense that the world is a safe and moral place, where good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. When bad things happen to good people, it implies that no one is safe, that no matter how good we are, we too could be vulnerable. The idea that misfortune can be random, striking anyone at any time, is a terrifying thought, and yet we are faced every day with evidence that it may be true.
In the 1960s, social psychologist Dr. Melvin Lerner conducted a famous serious of studies in which he found that when participants observed another person receiving electric shocks and were unable to intervene, they began to derogate the victims. The more unfair and severe the suffering appeared to be, the greater the derogation. Follow up studies found that a similar phenomenon occurs when people evaluate victims of car accidents, rape, domestic violence, illness, and poverty. Research conducted by Dr. Ronnie Janoff-Bulman suggests that victims sometimes even derogate themselves, locating the cause of their suffering in their own behavior, but not in their enduring characteristics, in an effort to make negative events seem more controllable and therefore more avoidable in the future.
Lerner theorized that these victim blaming tendencies are rooted in the belief in a just world, a world where actions have predictable consequences and people can control what happens to them. It is captured in common phrases like "what goes around comes around" and "you reap what you sow." We want to believe that justice will come to wrongdoers, whereas good, honest people who follow the rules will be rewarded. Research has found, not surprisingly, that people who believe that the world is a just place are happier and less depressed. But this happiness may come at a cost—it may reduce our empathy for those who are suffering, and we may even contribute to their suffering by increasing stigmatization.
So is the only alternative to belief in a just world a sense of helplessness and depression? Not at all. People can believe that the world is full of injustice but also believe that they are capable of making the world a more just place through their own actions. One way to help make the world a better place to fight the impulse to rationalize others' suffering, and to recognize that it could have just as soon been us in their shoes. This recognition can be unsettling, but it may also be the only way that we can truly open our hearts to others' suffering and help them feel supported and less alone. What the world may lack in justice we can at least try to make up for in compassion. 

Harvard's prestigious debate team loses to New York prison inmates

Quote
Prisoners participating in Bard College initiative to provide them a liberal arts education beat Ivy League students who won national title only months ago


Months after winning a national title, Harvard's debate team has fallen to a group of New York prison inmates.
The showdown took place at the Eastern correctional facility in New York, a maximum-security prison where convicts can take courses taught by faculty from nearby Bard College, and where inmates have formed a popular debate club. Last month they invited the Ivy League undergraduates and this year's national debate champions over for a friendly competition.


A three-judge panel concluded that the Bard team had raised strong arguments that the Harvard team had failed to consider and declared the team of inmates victorious.
"Debate helps students master arguments that they don't necessarily agree with," said Max Kenner, founder and executive director of the Bard prison initiative, told the Guardian. "It also pushes people to learn to be not just better litigators but to become more empathetic people, and that's what really speaks to us as an institution about the debate union."
The inmates were asked to argue that public schools should be allowed to deny enrollment to undocumented students, a position the team opposed.
One of the judges, Mary Nugent, told the Wall Street Journal that the Bard team effectively made the case that the schools which serve undocumented children often underperformed. The debaters proposed that if these so-called dropout factories refuse to enroll the children, then nonprofits and wealthier schools might intercede, offering the students better educations. She told the paper that Harvard's debaters did not respond to all aspects of the argument.

The Harvard team directed requests for comment to a post on its Facebook page that commended the prison team for its achievements and complimented the work done by the Bard initiative.

"There are few teams we are prouder of having lost a debate to than the phenomenally intelligent and articulate team we faced this weekend, and we are incredibly thankful to Bard and the Eastern New York Correctional Facility for the work they do and for organizing this event," the debate team wrote days after their loss.
The prison team has proven formidable in the past, beating teams from the US military academy at West Point and the University of Vermont. They lost a rematch against West Point in April, setting up a friendly rivalry between the teams. The competition against West Point has become an annual event, and the prison team is preparing for the next debate in spring.


Kenner said the Bard prison initiative, which has expanded since 2001 to six New York correctional facilities, aims to provide inmates with a liberal arts education so that when the students leave prison they are able to find meaningful work.

"The purpose of work is not to reform criminal justice per se," Kenner said, "but to engage and to relate to people who are in prison, who have great capacity and who have that dedication and willingness to work hard, as we engage any other college students."
Among formerly incarcerated Bard students who earned degrees while in custody, fewer than 2% have returned to prison within three years, a standard measurement period for assessing recidivism. This is exceptionally low, when contrasted with the statewide recidivism rate, which has hovered for decades at about 40%.


The Bard program, which is funded through private donors, offers more than 60 academic classes each semester across its satellite campuses located at six medium- and maximum-security prisons in New York state. Inmates with a high school degree or equivalent apply for the program with written essays and a personal interview. Admission is competitive, with nearly 10 inmates applying for every spot available.
While in prison, Kenner said students are encouraged to "make the most of every opportunity".

Carlos Polanco, a 31-year-old from Queens and a member of Bard's winning debate team, is among the roughly 15% of inmates at the correctional facility in Napanoch who has taken advantage of the education program.
"We have been graced with opportunity," Polanco, who is in prison for manslaughter, told the Wall Street Journal after the debate. "They make us believe in ourselves."

Chinese women had to wear bikinis for a chance to become flight attendants

Quote

The flight attendant industry has been accused of sexism for decades. While the industry has made considerable reforms, some Chinese companies have lagged slightly — er, decades — behind.
See also: 35,000 Feet: Where Sexual Harassment Can Still Get a Pass
In Qingdao, Northeast China, modeling agency Oriental Beauty hosted a slightly unusual competition over the weekend. Recruiters from both the aviation industry and fashion industry watched from the audience as over 1000 female recent high school graduates paraded around in conservative uniforms and bikinis, hoping to land job contracts.

More than 1,000 graduates, from Shandong, Hebei, Shanxi and other nearby provinces, competed for a chance at these often lucrative contracts. Candidates were required to be 5'6" tall, unless they were exceptionally beautiful, in which case, the requirement could be dropped to 5'5". Seems fair.
Women were further encouraged to be "elegant, slim, have sweet voice and have no scars in the exposed part of their skin," The Daily Mail reports.

The Chinese aviation industry is a huge employer of women. In 2013, nearly 41% of Air China's employees were women, even though just 1.1% of all Chinese pilots were female. The industry has long been accused of institutional sexism. A report recently published in The Conversation found that newspaper advertisements routinely advertised for women "to be aged 18-25, slim, attractive, have good skin...[and a] pleasant personality."

Eh, ma da. U jednoj Middle Eaast zemlji stjuardesama, po ugovoru, nije dozvoljeno da zatrudne, a potrebna im je dozvola kompanije da bi se udale. A nije Saudijska Arabija.

pa gde si ti videla trudnu stjuardesu?

Bomban opet trijumfuje!

Quote from: Boban on 31-12-2015, 14:59:04
pa gde si ti videla trudnu stjuardesu?

Je... Jal porodica, jal karijera... Šta bi uopšte te lude feministkinje tele?

A zašto se vi pravi muškarci osećati toliko ugroženo od strane feministkinja?

ovo poruka br. 2 tako da ću moći odgovoriti tek u 2016.

Što bi se osećali ugroženi? Ovo je Balkan, ovde nema mesta za napumpane stjuardese...

Prvo, nije Balkan nego neka bliskoistočna država. Drugo, da li bi koristio izraz "napumpana stjuardesa" i za svoju hipotetičku trudnu sestru stjuardesu?

Nemam sestru, hvala bogu...

Izgleda da postoje i različite vrste feminizma...

koje krmace...samo ona pored one u crvenom grudnjaku lici na zenu

Divne su. Sve.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 30-10-2014, 10:54:32
D. možda nije fizički sa nama (ili, er, virtuelno), ali ne znači da nam nije u mislima. Ovaj tekst je zanimljiv, jer potvrđuje ono to i inače znamo - da smo najubeđeniji da znamo šta pričamo baš kad su u pitanju stvari koje zapravo ne poznajemo dovoljno. Neću ovim da sugerišem da je D. egzemplar ovakvog ponašanja jer Alah zna da sam i sam nebrojeno puta počinio ovj grijeh. I činim ga ponovljeno, naravno:

Ovo tek sad vidim.

Ma i da tvrdiš, ništa sporno. U međuvremenu sam prestala da sebe shvatam ozbiljno. Ali to me ne sprečava da ipak imam stav. Zabave radi. 

! No longer available

Жене - неискоришћени економски ресурс Србије             
Горан Николић   
http://www.nspm.rs/ekonomska-politika/zene-neiskorisceni-ekonomski-resurs-srbije.html

Мушкарци дуже и више раде, а краће живе - реакција на текст Горана Николића ,,Жене – неискоришћени економски ресурс Србије"             
Владислав Ђорђевић   
http://www.nspm.rs/polemike/muskarci-duze-i-vise-rade-a-krace-zive-reakcija-na-tekst-gorana-nikolica-zene-–-neiskorisceni-ekonomski-resurs-srbije.html


što da samo forumaši nerviraju D.

Hahah, ne nerviram se ja odavno na ovakve tekstove i njihove autore, batice. Naprotiv, zabavljam se ludo. 

Pa kaže (u drugom tekstu):

QuoteДакле, није законодавство то које жене искључује ,,из плаћених послова" – како имплицира Николић – него нешто друго: женска природа. Када је реч о послу жене су врло пробирљиве. Физички тешке послове избегавају. Када ћете видети жене багеристкиње? Аутомеханичарке? Електричарке? Столарке? Водоинсталатерке? Рударке? Зидарке? Итд. Нисам наишао на много радова у којима се феминисткиње жале што су из тих послова ,,искључене", што је само једна у низу илустрација њиховог лицемерја. Где год су тешки послови – ту су жене ,,искључене". Али то што их ,,искључује" је женска природа, а не некакав закон.
Свакако да има жена које би волеле да раде, а не могу да нађу посао. Али исто тако, има много и мушкараца који би волели да раде, а не могу да нађу посао. Имајући у виду женску и мушку психу, као и друштвену корист, ако се већ треба некоме дати посао онда је – при једнаким квалификацијама – боље да то буде мушкарац. Од мушкараца се и даље очекује да буду примарни хранитељи породице.
Ретко ћете нећи девојку која машта да се уда за незапосленог уметника, беспосленог сањара или малодушног меланхолика. Све желе да се удају за пословно, тј. финансијски успешног младића. Или бар оног који показују потенцијал да то буде. Упркос свим променама, жене још увек маштају о таквом младићу. Стога би Горан Николић учино паметнију ствар да је написао чланак ,,Мушкарци – неискоришћени економски ресурс Србије".

Pa kaže još:

QuoteВећ наредни, осми пасус почиње констатацијом: ,,Припаднице лепшег пола практично свугде у свету живе дуже од мушкараца." Али то што мушкарци краће живе аутора не забрињава. За то он криви или лоше мушко понашање (пушење, алкохолизам, гојазност и суицид) или биологију (тетостерон и ,,x" хромозом). И ту ставља тачку, као да тиме сугерише да се ту не може ништа учинити. Сви набројани чиниоци заиста утичу на то да мушкарци краће живе. Али Горан Николић – попут миријаде других апологета феминизма – пропушта да постави кључно питање: зашто су мушкарци склонији свим аутодеструктивном радњама? Који су то унутрашњи пристици који их нагоне да излаз проналазе у вештачким стимулансима или – у крајњој линији – добровољној смрти? Али нема покушаја да се дају одговори на та питања.

Iskrena da budem, očekivala sam da autor ovde optuži zle žene koje muče muškarce u vezama i brakovima, žene koje vade dušu muškarcima, nerviraju ih, piju im krv, pominju nekakav feminizam i tako, sasvim zasluženo, zauzvrat dobijaju muško nasilje od jadnih muškaraca koji ne znaju šta će više sa tim ženama. 

QuoteУ целини узев, мушкарци раде дуже и напорније, а краће живе. Али та ситуација није ,,забрињавајућа". Ах! Да! Они су мушкарци. Кога брига?!

Vrhunski argument.

Inače, prvi tekst (čijeg autora drugi autor zove bratom feministkinja ) je pismen i napisan po akademskim standardima, a drugi je totalni diletantski krš. Mislim, mogao je autor i podacima i svedočenjima da argumentuje zanemarivanje muškog pola i da traži glas za njih, a ne patetikom.  Ne sećam se da sam negde čitala da su se žene okupljale na ulicama i plakale za pravo glasa. U sistemu koji je od korena do vrha podređen muškarcima, u sistemu gde se na žene gleda kao na zle i agresivne veštice koje žive duže od muškaraca, udaju se iz koristi i okreću muškarce jedne protiv drugih, u sistemu koji žene primorava da jedna drugoj budu konkurencija i da se mrze, lik plače nad sudbinom muškaraca?

sorry, ali prvi autor je gluperda, drugog još nisam čito

vrh je ovo
''Едуковање девојака је међу најбољим инвестицијама у земљама у развоју, укључујући и Србију. Наиме, не само да ће едукованије жене више производити него оне чак и рађају и одгајају здравију и едукованију децу.''

u feminističkom tekstu

Nisi čitao, a postuješ mi da reagujem? Priznaj, batice, da mi samo trošiš postove. 

Ma šta znam, nemam vrednosnu odrednicu prema prvom tekstu. Čovek, očito, piše u najboljoj nameri, a kada neko ima izrazito dobru nameru meni je uvek neprijatno da kritikujem.

Mogu da razumem logiku citiranog, čovek piše iz kapitalističke perspektive. U tom smislu je i logično da će obrazovane žene više proizvoditi i odgajati obrazovanu decu. No, isto važi i za muškarce, te mi samo nije jasno zašto je odgoj zdrave i obrazovane dece doveo u vezu isključivo sa ženama.

Ma kakav feministički tekst, pregazilo je njega vreme. Ovo je samo tekst (lično) naklonjen ženama.

Quote from: D. on 12-01-2016, 12:43:08
Nisi čitao, a postuješ mi da reagujem? Priznaj, batice, da mi samo trošiš postove. 

ma kakvi, eo sad ću da nađem još postova koje nisam čito!


nisam ni prvi do kraja pročito, prosto čoek pojma nema u kom su odnosu proizvodni i sektor usluga. To čak nije ni iz kapitalističke perspektive, jer možda najveći sociolog sektora usluga Danijel Bel ga je ispravno nazvao parazitnim sektorom, koji gotovo u potpunosti (postoje izuzeci) zavisi od proizvodnog sektora.


Ako je neko kapitalista onda je to Bel


Ova gluperda tvrdi da ekonomija Srbije treba da zavisi od sektora usluga, koji je za Bela parazitni sektor - objesiti ga na Terazijama za muda


nije džaba Tramp popularan, pa on upravo hoće da vrati proizvodnju u Ameriku, gdje se sve svelo na usluge


a koliko vidim po tome što si izdvojila iz drugog teksta, upravo žene rade u uslužnom sektoru, i to ovoga navodi da su oni taj resurs, koji btw napravi desetine milijardi evra duga Srbiji, i to je malo zaboravio da spomene


žena građevinski inženjer, e to je sektor usluga koji je od velike koristi za proizvodni sektor


a ono što mi imamo u Srbiji pod imenom tercijarnog sektora, to gotovo ništa nije proizvodno, lupanje pečata i ostalo...


tako da taj prvi mora da se pozicionira u odnosu na Bela, ako to ne čini onda se uopšte ne bavi naukom nego propagandom, a vidjeću da prelistam reakciju ovog drugog, da vidim šta je to patetično... mada, to sa ženskom prirodom jeste malo glupo, i muškarac bi izabrao fizički lakši posao kad bi mogao.

elem, drugi tekst ispravno konstatuje o prvom: ''текст у суштини политичко полтронство: повлађује владајућој идеолошкој матрици, тј. снисходи феминистичкој парадигми''

čim tekst ignoriše fakat parazitarnosti uslužnog sektora to je povlađivanje nečemu što veze nema s privredom, a tvrdi da upravo o tome priča

iako ovaj drvi i o svojim ljubavnim neuspjesima, čak i tu otvara pitanja koja brat feminista ignoriše, a jednostavno nema pravo da ih ignoriše

smrtnost muškaraca, nizak natalitet, status braka u društvu, to su takođe privredni resursi, na koje kad ne obratiš pažnju to je automatski sumnjivo

dakle, drugi tekst dobro pronalazi rupe u prvom, ali ih loše popunjava

uostalom, prvi tekst nije ni pošten. Naslov mu je ''žena kao privredni resurs'' a onda je počeo o ljudskim pravima i emancipaciji. Nije ni čudo onda da mu je odgovoreno istom mjerom, sa osjećanjima muškaraca i opijanjem, tu su po kvalitetu isto dno. I u slučaju muškaraca i žena, privredni resursi nemaju prava

Pa dobro, i ja sam na svojim studijama menadžmenta ljudskim resursima pisala seminarske radove o tome zašto ljude ne treba zvati resursima. Srećom, imala sam kul profesorku koja je predavala bateriju menadžment predmeta i koja me je želela i za asistentkinju (dok je muškarci nisu skrljali i oterali u prevremenu penziju). 

Nego, prvi članak argumentuje kako uslužni sektor raste, nasuprot ostalim sektorima, a pošto tamo preovlađuju žene, logično je da predviđa i želi i porast broja zaposlenih žena. To nije feministički, savremene feministkinje se ne bore za to da žene budu šrafići u javnom i uslužnom sektoru, dok država ima svega dve ministarke u Vladi. Utoliko je ovaj autor ostao zaglavljen u nekim prošlim vremenima.

Pa čekaj, autor je pisao o (ranijoj) smrtnosti muškaraca, čak je i obrazložio zašto je to tako. Meni su ti razlozi sasvim razumni. Da li je moguće da muškarci umiru ranije jer rade teže poslove? Pa jeste, pogotovo u nerazvijenim i u zemljama u razvoju, ali pošto ranije umiru i u razvijenim zemljama, biće da to nije primarni faktor.

Što se tiče pada nataliteta, ama baš nikada nisam razumela zašto napadaju samo žene zbog toga? Mislim, šta sad, neka žena bez posla treba da se uda, izrađa decu i sedi kod kuće, prepuštena milosti i nemilosti svog muža? Dok ona koja ima karijeru treba da se razapinje na dve strane podjednako dok joj muž "pomaže" u kući?

Mislim, svi pate u trenutnom ekonomskom sistemu, i muškarci i žene, tu ne treba da se kuka ko pati više, nego da se iznađe rešenje za sve. Utoliko je prvi članak kudikamo bolji jer nudi neku opciju (čuveni kejs u debati  ) i predlaže rešenje, makar i u okviru sistema zbog kog svi pate. Drugi je samo čista pljuvačina prvog i patetika koja nikakvo kontra rešenje (konta kejs) nije ponudila i nema svrhu postojanja.

A piše o svojim ljubavnim neuspesima, zar ne?  I meni se pričinilo da se razočarao u ljubav. 

Meni je bolje postaviti dobro pitanje nego glupo rješenje. Uostalom, to i nije rješenje. Žene u tercijarnom sektoru akobogda ostaće neiskorišćeni resurs Srbije za vjeki vjekova, pošto tercijarni sektor ne može da podigne nijednu privredu, bar ne ovakav sektor kakav mi imamo.

pa sad, nije the feminista, ali nije ni neko ko bi rekao da je legalizovana prostitucija u stvari tercijarni sektor, pa eto žena kao neiskorišćenog privrednog resursa. Dakle, nemojmo sad ni da umanjujemo autorov feminizam (iako tu nije problem feminizam no njegova glupa primjena)

ko je kriv za natalitet je već drugo pitanje, a ne vidim gdje je prvi tekst uopšte postavio pitanje nataliteta. Dakle, taj niti je postavio pitanje, kamoli dao odgovor. Npr, ako je natalitet privredni resurs, onda neka se i naplati.

I stani, kako to sad da je žena u kući prepuštena mužu na milost i nemilost, a istovremeno svi pate u ekonomskom sistemu? Moraš lijepo da se opredjeliš šta je gore, i onda možda i izvučeš neke zaključke.

Mnogo si probirljiva!

Pa nije postavio pitanje o natalitetu jer ipak zna nešto o feminizmu.  Bilo je nedavno neko klanje između novinarke Politike koja je napisala (i to u Politici, mislim) kako Beograđanke više vole da se šminkaju, izlaze i provode se, nego da budu majke, mislim da je dala i primer Biljane Srbljanović koja je, kao eto, deklarisana feministikinja, a udala se za ambasadora i šlepa se o mušku moć itd.. I tu su ove feministkinje naskočile na nju, pa javna prepiska, pa odgovor u novinama, pa flejmovanje na fejsbuku itd.

Sve je počelo od ovog članka:

U Beogradu skoro polovina tridesetogodišnjakinja nema dete

I za šta se ja tu opredeljujem, pitaš? Ostavila sam im komentar u celom tom flejmovanju, koji je bio widely ignorisan.  Pozvala sam na solidarnost žena i pitala zašto napadaju ženu koja je očito napisala naručen članak. Ta žena je nebitna u celoj situaciji. I pitala sam zašto ne pitaju uredništvo Politike što se meša u privatni život žena. Ipak Politika ima određen uticaj u društvu i latentno optuživanje žena za nerađanje ostavlja gorak ukus. Da ne govorim o neukusnom poređenju sa natalitetom u Roma i drugih manjina u Srbiji.

Naravno, žene su se međusobno iskasapile, a uredništvo Politike su jedva okrznule. Feministkinje, a nesvesne patrijarhalnog modela u koji su upale (da napadaju drugu ženu).

Jasno je da sam se ja između toga da se nađem u muževljevoj milosti i karijere u kapitalizmu opredelila za limbo. I tu obitavam maštajući o ljubavi. 

stvarno ne vidim šta fali tom tekstu, ako se pročita od početka do kraja. Lijepo sve piše

natalitet je privredni resurs, to je fakat, bez nataliteta nema ničije karijere. Mislio sam da ćeš nekako sama da se dogegaš do tog zaključka, no očigledno ne možeš

na stranu to što ti je ta tema o muškoj nemilosti jednako patetična, uvredljiva i netačna kao i ona teza o ženskoj probirljivosti i ''prirodi''.

Jeste resurs za državu, ali nije za narod. Za narod resurs su samo ona deca koju imaš, a ne i neka tuđa deca.

Pored brojnosti postavlja se i pitanje kvaliteta tih ljudi, budućih generacija. Možda zvuči grubu, al ne znam da l je bolje imati 5 ili 10 miliona pripadnika polusveta koji živi za gledanje rialiti emisija, polupismen je, glasa za razne Vučiće itd...

to su predrasude, gledaoci rijalitija prosječno su najobrazovanija srpska populacija svih vremena, možda i najpismenija svih vremena. Ko tvrdi da Farma zaglupljuje mora prvo to i da dokaže, sve ostalo su lažne intelektualne masturbacije


Naravno, u načelu je Truki u pravu da je estetski neprijatno biti dio takve nacije. U načelu je i mac u pravu da je to resurs za državu više nego za narod. No, taj narod hoće karijeru, hoće red i mir u zemlji, hoće besplatno zdravstvo, školstvo, hoće socijalnu politiku... hoće penziju, a misli da to pada s neba.

Možda bi bukvalno neko trebalo da im kaže da je nebo ekonomski termin za razmnožavanje.

Ti si Truki ekonomista, jel tako, pa objasni šta se dešava sa zemljom koja sa 10 padne na 5 miliona ljudi, i od tih 5 miliona pola su penzioneri.

Da, to doista jeste katastrofa za penzioni sistem. No, s druge strane pošto se ova zemlja ne razvija bolje da ima što manje ljudi jer onda ima i manje nezaposlenih. A s obzirom da vlasti odgovaraju glupi i neobrazovani ne treba očekivati nikakav napredak ekonomije. Obrni-okreni ova zemlja je najebala koliki god da je prirodni priraštaj.

Čekaj, batice, reci mi da ne znaš zašto je natalitet osetljiva tema za feministkinje?

Napisala sam na par mesta da su osetljive na to što se isključivo žene optužuju za pad nataliteta. Zatim, odgajanje dece u uslovima u kojima žena mora da se žrtvuje (finansijski, poslovno, psihološki itd.) da bi odgajala decu nije fer koncept za feministkinje. Takođe, država Srbija ne samo da ne uvodi benefite za majke i trudnice i ne štiti ih na tržištu rada i u kući (domaćice), već sve benefite sistematski ukida. Dakle, sada društvo i otvoreno traži od žena da se žrtvuju? Znam da su muškarci u Srbiji navikli da žene trpe, ćute i budu žrtve, ali ne ide to tako, batice...