Lurker > WTGHookshot

knuxnole posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

knuxnole posted...

Bump

TBH high school is pointless. Just stick with elementary school.

For most jobs you dont need anything you learn in HS. Look at workers in restaraunts, stores etc

I dont use anything that they tried to teach in high school, at all! Only basic math but a machine does it for me so I never have to count like ever

You won't be able to move into fields that actually require skills with this logic. You have to learn the skills somewhere, in a school or out of it, but if your only skills are things you learned in elementary school, I don't think you will have very good career prospects.

I dont plan on prospects I just need anything that gets money. I dont need those rich people or smart people things

Then don't plan on having kids.

The average cost of having a kid is $200,000 between conception and them reaching adulthood.

Also, how do you plan to work in a restaurant or a store in the long run when online retailers are causing many stores to shut down and many restaurants are also moving to automated services?

knuxnole posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

knuxnole posted...

All this talk is confusing

You people must have paid attention or been in AP classes. Regular classes dont have this cause we rowdy

Books.

https://books.google.com/books/about/Basic_Economics.html?id=6pNVStJrYFYC

That book is HUGE, 500 pages, never have I read anything that dense in my life. Plus it may be boring

500 pages is huge?

Man, I think reading War and Peace or my Civil Engineering Reference Manual would probably kill you.

Sativa_Rose posted...

WTGHookshot posted...

But that's exactly what I'm talking about. The Twin Towers were never objectively destroyed, only subjectively...

Okay but if we're going around saying stuff like this, we're basically in a pointless philosophical void of nothingness where nothing actually exists and nothing matters and we are all just a bunch of atoms and it doesn't matter if we all got nuked tomorrow because we'd still be atoms

And you kind of just described my philosophy on life right there.

Sativa_Rose posted...

WTGHookshot posted...

Anteaterking posted...

Do you understand how subjective valuations can create "value" in a closed system?

Yes, in a closed system and when subjectivity is involved. But I'm not talking a closed system, I am talking a universal system based on objectivity.

If that's what everyone's trying to talk about, then it seems we are just on different wavelengths then (which is not uncommon for me... honestly, I'm starting to think these days that I might be undiagnosed for a higher-functioning level of autism, potentially).

No, it just sounds like you've never approached things from an economics framework, which isn't that uncommon actually.

I knew nothing about economics until undergrad. That's where I learned this stuff.

Eh, maybe that potentially is the case, but it is more of a general issue I have, not specifically on this subject. I get into a lot of arguments over a lot of things, and it always boils down to the same thing: objectivity and subjectivity. There are a lot of concepts with subjectivity I just don't grasp. I have a hard time, say, knowing how to act in a subjective role, like being a good brother for my sister or comforting someone when they've lost a loved one... It's difficult for me to be around people who are grieving.

Sativa_Rose posted...

WTGHookshot posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

WTGHookshot posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

WTGHookshot posted...

The other guy only valued the money more than the good or service in order to spend it on something else that he values more than the money. In the end, it's all a wash because we are just trading back and forth by getting rid of something we don't need as much. If that's a net positive, then there is never once a net negative ever. And if there is never a negative, then it's not positive. Good/Bad, Light/Dark, Positive/Negative... They are dichotomies. Without negative, there can never be positive.

tl;dr:
"I'll never be able to grasp the concept of non-zero-sum systems"

You are right; I will never be able to grasp the concept of non-zero-sum systems because, unless there is some form of deity that can literally create something from absolutely nothing, then everything is a zero-sum system. The only time it isn't is when someone adds their own brackets to it to confine the system for their own defining purposes. And maybe that's what you are talking about, but then we are at odds because I am talking a universal system, with no brackets confining the system. So, you are right; I will never be able to grasp the concept of non-zero-sum universal systems.

You can't understand the fact that the internet didn't exist in 1000 BC but it exists now?

Everything that created the internet existed in 1000 BC. So, nothing new was gained in the universal system. It just changed form, which is where we got the internet from. The internet is nothing more than the energy and atoms making up the computers, cables, networks, and signals being used, and all of that energy and atoms existed in 1000 BC.

The rearrangement in certain ways to accomplish certain tasks in certainly new.

Or if we're going to use your logic, somebody better call Rudy Giuliani and tell him that the Twin Towers were never destroyed, because the law of conservation of mass! All those atoms are still there!

New in the sense of not being arranged that way, sure, but not in the sense that it came from nothing.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about. The Twin Towers were never objectively destroyed, only subjectively...

Maybe that's where our discussion is at odds: I am talking only from an objective standpoint and you are including subjectivity? I'm sorry if this is the case, as I tend to get highly focused on purely objectivity and have very little room for subjectivity. I tend to get called a robot because of it...

Anteaterking posted...

WTGHookshot posted...

You are right; I will never be able to grasp the concept of non-zero-sum systems because, unless there is some form of deity that can literally create something from absolutely nothing, then everything is a zero-sum system. The only time it isn't is when someone adds their own brackets to it to confine the system for their own defining purposes. And maybe that's what you are talking about, but then we are at odds because I am talking a universal system, with no brackets confining the system. So, you are right; I will never be able to grasp the concept of non-zero-sum universal systems.

Do you understand how subjective valuations can create "value" in a closed system?

Yes, in a closed system and when subjectivity is involved. But I'm not talking a closed system, I am talking a universal system based on objectivity.

If that's what everyone's trying to talk about, then it seems we are just on different wavelengths then (which is not uncommon for me... honestly, I'm starting to think these days that I might be undiagnosed for a higher-functioning level of autism, potentially).

Sativa_Rose posted...

WTGHookshot posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

WTGHookshot posted...

The other guy only valued the money more than the good or service in order to spend it on something else that he values more than the money. In the end, it's all a wash because we are just trading back and forth by getting rid of something we don't need as much. If that's a net positive, then there is never once a net negative ever. And if there is never a negative, then it's not positive. Good/Bad, Light/Dark, Positive/Negative... They are dichotomies. Without negative, there can never be positive.

tl;dr:
"I'll never be able to grasp the concept of non-zero-sum systems"

You are right; I will never be able to grasp the concept of non-zero-sum systems because, unless there is some form of deity that can literally create something from absolutely nothing, then everything is a zero-sum system. The only time it isn't is when someone adds their own brackets to it to confine the system for their own defining purposes. And maybe that's what you are talking about, but then we are at odds because I am talking a universal system, with no brackets confining the system. So, you are right; I will never be able to grasp the concept of non-zero-sum universal systems.

You can't understand the fact that the internet didn't exist in 1000 BC but it exists now?

Everything that created the internet existed in 1000 BC. So, nothing new was gained in the universal system. It just changed form, which is where we got the internet from. The internet is nothing more than the energy and atoms making up the computers, cables, networks, and signals being used, and all of that energy and atoms existed in 1000 BC.

Sativa_Rose posted...

WTGHookshot posted...

. Their well-being 100 years ago is the same well-being we have now.

Okay if you're going to say things that are easily and objectively disproved, then you're just denying reality at this point. Look at how many people could afford a car for example back during the days of the Model T. More than before, but still not nearly as many as today when it's nearly everybody in the US.

How did that lead to a net improvement, though? They now can afford a car, but now being able to afford a car impacted costs elsewhere, such as the rise in gasoline prices, and other downsides such as people getting less exercise and becoming more obese or the rapid consumption of a finite resource (fossil fuels) or the increased pollution given off by the increase in cars on the road.

Questionmarktarius posted...

WTGHookshot posted...

The other guy only valued the money more than the good or service in order to spend it on something else that he values more than the money. In the end, it's all a wash because we are just trading back and forth by getting rid of something we don't need as much. If that's a net positive, then there is never once a net negative ever. And if there is never a negative, then it's not positive. Good/Bad, Light/Dark, Positive/Negative... They are dichotomies. Without negative, there can never be positive.

tl;dr:
"I'll never be able to grasp the concept of non-zero-sum systems"

You are right; I will never be able to grasp the concept of non-zero-sum systems because, unless there is some form of deity that can literally create something from absolutely nothing, then everything is a zero-sum system. The only time it isn't is when someone adds their own brackets to it to confine the system for their own defining purposes. And maybe that's what you are talking about, but then we are at odds because I am talking a universal system, with no brackets confining the system. So, you are right; I will never be able to grasp the concept of non-zero-sum universal systems.

Sativa_Rose posted...

WTGHookshot posted...

Darkman124 posted...

WTGHookshot posted...

I agree personal finance should be taught, but not necessarily because not everyone makes investments. If everyone made investments and was taught how to properly make investments, then it would be a stalement in the end. The first rule of capitalism is that if you are making money, someone else is losing money.

that is not the first rule of capitalism at all

There is finite money in any system. Let's call this value A. All the money in the world has to add up to A. Even if people add more currency, all that does is devalue the currency and you still have everything add up to A. So, if A cannot change, then for you to get more money (let's call it B), then someone else, somewhere has to lose money (let's call the amount of money they have as C).

A=B+C
A does not change.
If B increases, then C has to decrease to still equal A.

Capitalism: I pay you for a good or service. If I'm paying you, I'm losing money and you are gaining money.

Please explain to me how that's not the primary focus of capitalism?

You are forgetting that what really matters to our well-being are the underlying goods and services that people use their money to buy. People produce more stuff, and there's more of it going around. There is clearly a lot more abundance than there was 100 years ago. There are also things that people want that they didn't even know they wanted until it was created for them, like the internet.

Clearly, there is much more of an abundance of goods and services compared to 100 years ago, and the amount of labor the average person would have to do to access them has gone down as well (for most things).

Eh, I disagree. I don't believe that is what really matters. Their well-being 100 years ago is the same well-being we have now. Like you said, they didn't know they wanted the internet. So how would the lack of internet be negatively affecting their well-being? And let's take the internet as an example: with the invention of the internet, it has increased well-being in certain areas (let's say, media consumption) while decreasing well-being in other areas (let's say, brick-and-mortar stores). In the end, it's all the same at a baseline of the total human experience. We trade new solutions for new problems.

Questionmarktarius posted...

WTGHookshot posted...

Capitalism: I pay you for a good or service. If I'm paying you, I'm losing money and you are gaining money.

Please explain to me how that's not the primary focus of capitalism?

You valued the good or service more than you valued the money.
Likewise, the other guy valued the money more than the good or service.
A net positive occurred via the transaction.

The other guy only valued the money more than the good or service in order to spend it on something else that he values more than the money. In the end, it's all a wash because we are just trading back and forth by getting rid of something we don't need as much. If that's a net positive, then there is never once a net negative ever. And if there is never a negative, then it's not positive. Good/Bad, Light/Dark, Positive/Negative... They are dichotomies. Without negative, there can never be positive.

Sativa_Rose posted...

WTGHookshot posted...

DevsBro posted...

WTGHookshot posted...

Not everyone makes investments

Because they don't know how because we focused on this "one man's trash" stuff.

How about if it's your treasure you go study it at a university or even on your own instead of cutting education for stuff that will be beneficial for literally every human being on Earth?

How do you know it's your treasure if it's never been introduced to you, though? How do you choose to study it at university or on your own if you don't even know about it?

Also, how is investments beneficial for literally every humab being on Earth? Investments is a capitalistic venture, based on capitalism's principals. In order for someone to make money in capitalism, someone else has to lose money. I eat at a restaurant... the waiter, the cook, the owner, they have to receive money to pay them... But in order to pay them, I have to give them my money, which means I lose money. And then they go and lose money by paying for the supplies. Capitalism requires winning and losing. If we teach everyone to be a winner in investing, then we have no losers. And because capitalism is all about give and take, if we have no losers, those "winners" aren't really winning anything.

This isn't true at all. Capitalism is not a zero sum game. There is far more wealth in this world than there was 100 years ago. If what you are saying is true, then wealth creation would not happen, the total amount of wealth would be stagnant and it would just be changing hands. You are missing the critical fact that trade (like the decision to exchange money for food at a restaurant) can make everybody involved better off.

Explain to me how wealth creation has happened then. I'd be interested to hear your take. How is there far more wealth in this world than 100 years ago?

How is it making everybody involved better off?

Darkman124 posted...

WTGHookshot posted...

I agree personal finance should be taught, but not necessarily because not everyone makes investments. If everyone made investments and was taught how to properly make investments, then it would be a stalement in the end. The first rule of capitalism is that if you are making money, someone else is losing money.

that is not the first rule of capitalism at all

There is finite money in any system. Let's call this value A. All the money in the world has to add up to A. Even if people add more currency, all that does is devalue the currency and you still have everything add up to A. So, if A cannot change, then for you to get more money (let's call it B), then someone else, somewhere has to lose money (let's call the amount of money they have as C).

A=B+C
A does not change.
If B increases, then C has to decrease to still equal A.

Capitalism: I pay you for a good or service. If I'm paying you, I'm losing money and you are gaining money.

Please explain to me how that's not the primary focus of capitalism?

DevsBro posted...

WTGHookshot posted...

Not everyone makes investments

Because they don't know how because we focused on this "one man's trash" stuff.

How about if it's your treasure you go study it at a university or even on your own instead of cutting education for stuff that will be beneficial for literally every human being on Earth?

How do you know it's your treasure if it's never been introduced to you, though? How do you choose to study it at university or on your own if you don't even know about it?

Also, how is investments beneficial for literally every humab being on Earth? Investments is a capitalistic venture, based on capitalism's principals. In order for someone to make money in capitalism, someone else has to lose money. I eat at a restaurant... the waiter, the cook, the owner, they have to receive money to pay them... But in order to pay them, I have to give them my money, which means I lose money. And then they go and lose money by paying for the supplies. Capitalism requires winning and losing. If we teach everyone to be a winner in investing, then we have no losers. And because capitalism is all about give and take, if we have no losers, those "winners" aren't really winning anything.

Darkman124 posted...

WTGHookshot posted...

Not everyone makes investments

this is why personal finance should be taught.

I agree personal finance should be taught, but not necessarily because not everyone makes investments. If everyone made investments and was taught how to properly make investments, then it would be a stalement in the end. The first rule of capitalism is that if you are making money, someone else is losing money.

knuxnole posted...

But those kids were destined. If they were nerdy enough to care they would need it. Most people arent nerds though

I think you are confusing the term "nerds" for something else. The "nerds" were taking IB/AP classes, not the regular classes.

Those kids didn't become "destined" on their own. They had teachers that tried cultivating them. They had parents that tried instilling that an education is important. They had internal drive to better their situation.

Usually, the first jobs to be replaced are the jobs that don't require an education.

DevsBro posted...

WTGHookshot posted...

See, the thing is YOU don't need to name what form of irony someone was using, but maybe one of the other kids in you English Lit class does need to know that today for their career.

High school is all about teaching broad spectrums to expose people to what's possible in their future.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Everyone needs to know how to add, read, etc. And everyone needs to know how to invest. But investment is left out for the sake of all this crap that most people aren't ever going to use or care about. What was George Washington's dog's name? What's the indefinite integral of (e^x)sin x?

English lit just happens to be the BSest of all this stuff is why I picked on it.

Eh, you used a bad example. Indefinite integrals are things I have to use quite a bit in my field (civil engineering), so that's not a BS thing at all. To a guide at Mt. Vernon, knowing George Washington's dog's name also isn't BS.

This is one of those "one man's trash is another man's treasure" situation. Not everyone makes investments, so even investing isn't 100% needed by everyone. That said, quite a few schools do have classes that talk about that. When I was in high school, it was mandatory to take "Participation in Government" for a semester and "Economics" for a semester which included a hefty portion about investment. The only time you didn't need to take those was if you were in the AP/IB history/math classes. I figure the reason for that was those tend to be geared at more intellectual students who would already learn or know the skills taught in those classes on their own.

knuxnole posted...

WTGHookshot posted...

prince_leo posted...

most people I know remember things from high school. not the details, but they know the broad ideas

This.

And the people that don't tend to remember the stuff from high school tend to be the dregs of society, so they aren't exactly shining examples to use to prove "high school isn't important." From my perspective, those are shining examples to use to prove why paying attention in high school is important.

I seriously cant remember ONE thing Ive learned in high school. At all. High school was where you joke with friends, play video games, play pranks, and mess around. Most of my classes, the kids didnt just sit there and listen. I cant remember anything useful in school like ever

And that's why I asked: what do you do for a living? What do those other kids now do for a living?

DevsBro posted...

Since graduating college, I have not once needed to name what form of irony someone was using or infer tone in exactly the same way as a teacher, boss, etc.

English Lit is a waste.

We should spend that time--hell, half that time, a quarter of that time if you must--learning important stuff like how to write an email, how to invest, etc.

See, the thing is YOU don't need to name what form of irony someone was using, but maybe one of the other kids in you English Lit class does need to know that today for their career.

High school is all about teaching broad spectrums to expose people to what's possible in their future. Maybe someone decided on their career based upon their interest that a particular class brought them. And yes, classes matter in that sense compared to real life. For instance, my sister wanted to be a nurse because she liked the field and being with people and healing them. However, when she went to college, there was a lot of biology, chemistry, and other sciences... and she hated science. But she did remember liking math, which led her into a career in business technology.

But I do agree: they should devote some time to at least some life skills like writing emails, interviewing, writing resumes, home ownership, general rights, etc.

Sativa_Rose posted...

WTGHookshot posted...

prince_leo posted...

most people I know remember things from high school. not the details, but they know the broad ideas

This.

And the people that don't tend to remember the stuff from high school tend to be the dregs of society, so they aren't exactly shining examples to use to prove "high school isn't important." From my perspective, those are shining examples to use to prove why paying attention in high school is important.

From personal experience, my friends who bitched about how high school was a waste were the ones who never took a single AP/IB class, flunked most of high school, and then got their GEDs. None of them went on to college, and they all work typical crappy unskilled labor type jobs now.

For the most part, the same. I do have one friend who found high school a waste and has a great job as a software engineer... But the reason high school was a waste for him is he knew what he wanted to do since he was 10. He started learning programming through textbooks in his spare time at age 12. So, high school didn't expose him to anything that he wasn't already exposing himself to. But for, say, one of my other friends who is an accountant now... He didn't know he wanted to be an accountant until partway into college. And he came to that conclusion because of his interest in math from high school.

Romulox28 posted...

Anteaterking posted...

Romulox28 posted...

here's the only financial advice that everyone needs: dont spend more money than you have

everything else you can figure out or do on your own. idk why internet nerds always feel like managing your finances is this super unobtainable concept that has to be taught in HS, at its core it's not that complicated.

I generally agree with this. You're given all of the tools you need to, for example, do your taxes in high school. I don't think people really think about how their hypothetical "do my finances" class would even be structured. They just imagine it as this nebulous thing they sit in where they have that skill at the end of it.

i think a lot of ppl that propose this idea dont really have any concept of how taxes/finances work because they're still teens, fully dependent on their parents, etc

it's really not rocket science. doing your taxes for example, is not even that hard. it literally tells you exactly what to write on the form. you just have to read it.

There's your issue right there.

Sativa_Rose posted...

Turbam posted...

Aside from Algebra, Middle School is a waste too.
Elementary seems to be the only one worth anything

This was the opposite for me... the higher the grade level, the more useful it was. Kindergarten was by far the biggest waste of time of my life, and I actually did learn a lot in HS.

Also, TC is a moron if he thinks math, English, and science are useless. The US has now fallen behind Poland in terms of average scores in these areas, by the way, even though we still have over 4x the median income. The idea that people think that American students need to learn even less of that stuff is terrifying.

The real problem with American schools is that the standards are too low.

Part of the standards being too low is schools are treated like businesses, even public schools. It's all about money. I have a friend who is a high school English teacher and he was asked by his head of department to start passing more kids or otherwise, they'd be facing budget cuts. Based on the school's standards, it was more important to have a certain pass rate or otherwise they would receive less funding from the county. And with that, it's a double-edged sword, because if they DON'T have that pass rate and get less funding, then they don't have enough funding to properly provide textbooks to all students or pay enough teachers to properly teach the subjects or any of that.

As for private schools, they are absolutely treated like businesses. When I went to university, the acceptance rate was 65%; however, more than 65% of the first year students failed out. Why? Because by accepting a lot of kids, they made money off of all those tuitions... But by the end of the first year, those kids couldn't keep up with the curriculum, weeding out the ones that shouldn't actually be there.

knuxnole posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

Turbam posted...

Aside from Algebra, Middle School is a waste too.
Elementary seems to be the only one worth anything

This was the opposite for me... the higher the grade level, the more useful it was. Kindergarten was by far the biggest waste of time of my life, and I actually did learn a lot in HS.

Also, TC is a moron if he thinks math, English, and science are useless. The US has now fallen behind Poland in terms of average scores in these areas, by the way, even though we still have over 4x the median income. The idea that people think that American students need to learn even less of that stuff is terrifying.

The real problem with American schools is that the standards are too low.

Algebra and geometry? Useless

Biology and chemistry? Useless

Earth science? What?

English? Reading boring novels? Vocal words no one uses.

Dont get me started on history. Old wars, and foreign countries? Government?

I hope you realize the reason they have these classes (other than to teach you) is to expose you to these ideas to help you choose your future careers.

Maybe you didn't like "reading boring novels" but some kid did and now maybe is an author or a journalist or a book critic because they were exposed to that. Earth science? Some kid was exposed to it and became a geologist or a environmental scientist because of having an interest in that stuff.

Biology, chemistry? Maybe those are useless to you, but I bet the doctor who treats you when you get sick doesn't think they are useless. And you know what probably led them to become a doctor or a pharmacist or a biomolecular engineer? Taking biology and chemistry and realizing they liked those things.

What do you do for a living, if you don't mind me asking? What made you want to do that?

prince_leo posted...

most people I know remember things from high school. not the details, but they know the broad ideas

This.

And the people that don't tend to remember the stuff from high school tend to be the dregs of society, so they aren't exactly shining examples to use to prove "high school isn't important." From my perspective, those are shining examples to use to prove why paying attention in high school is important.