Re: The vent thread

[Shaelyssa]

Call me racist but every single bedouin person I have met has turned out to be an awful awful awful person and I lived with them for a couple of years. Im so glad I moved out of that neighbourhood ugh ... you'd see their kids going around throwing BRICKS at passing cars, torturing stray cats and harassing girls. You go talk to their parents about their kids and you get lectured and shouted at and told to mind your own business!!! I knew one bedouin person who was very nice but most of the ones I've met are just bleh. I blame their culture. their culture is horrible horrible horrible

And I wouldnt know about Levant bedouins ... I think their culture is similar to the ones you find here in the gulf?

[Kristeas Sunbinder]

We dont have any physical bullying at my school, its mainly the emotional kind (which is a lot worse in my opinion) but I know in other schools there have been a few times where people have called their cousins and have ganged up on a couple of people ... but this is only way way way out in the outskirts of the city where all you find are crazy bedouin hillbillies.

They are so lovely, ain't they? They managed to remove everything from the car of my friend's father in 5 minutes or so, only the sekelton was left.

[Antistia]

From what I'm reading I'm glad we don't have those Bedouin guys over there. Mind you, I'm not referring to all Bedouin here, just the one's specifically described here.

And they think we have it bad with some Turks/Moroccans/Antillean people.

[Shaelyssa]

Ya bedouin culture is just awful. My sister's friend was bedouin and their parents forced her to get married at 15 to some 60 year old guy... this will sound bad but slowly, they are becoming "civilized" and are starting to assimilate I think? I make it sound like they're a minority but actually they're the majority and have a lot more power and rights than my ethnic group does

[Antistia]

Ya bedouin culture is just awful. My sister's friend was bedouin and their parents forced her to get married at 15 to some 60 year old guy... this will sound bad but slowly, they are becoming "civilized" and are starting to assimilate I think? I make it sound like they're a minority but actually they're the majority and have a lot more power and rights than my ethnic group does

I think the Roma do that too. I dislike that, but I'm a cultural universalist and not a cultural relativist so yeah. And on a general note, it's a bad thing when any ethnic group has more power/rights than another. That's just so very bad.

[Rasonal Dranger]

Ya bedouin culture is just awful. My sister's friend was bedouin and their parents forced her to get married at 15 to some 60 year old guy... this will sound bad but slowly, they are becoming "civilized" and are starting to assimilate I think? I make it sound like they're a minority but actually they're the majority and have a lot more power and rights than my ethnic group does

Yes slowly, and it's the same in here too. Atleast they are settling in permament villages now, though of course they don't pay taxes and beat any police that try to arrest anyone there for raping some girl in the village or the likes- but they are slowly assimilating.

[Antistia]

I'm starting to grow very much annoyed at a friend of mine. We have a lot of discussions because we have opposing viewpoints about pretty much everything, never have any problems or whatever cause we keep it civilized and lighthearted but lately he's been changing. Not in attacking my viewpoints in a not-so civilized manner or whatever, but he's talking down on me.

Lately when we disagree fundamentally on something he says I don't understand what he's talking about. Not only that, but he cuts off the conversation there without explaining himself. When I type a reply on msn before he apparently finishes his story I get told to not interrupt him in such a primitive manner, all the while he hardly uses punctuation.

It just bothers me, he's talking down on me intellectually and I hate it when people do that. I just hate it and it's really starting to annoy the hell out of me.

[Kristeas Sunbinder]

Out of curiosity, what would the topic happen to be?

[Rasonal Dranger]

I'm starting to grow very much annoyed at a friend of mine. We have a lot of discussions because we have opposing viewpoints about pretty much everything, never have any problems or whatever cause we keep it civilized and lighthearted but lately he's been changing. Not in attacking my viewpoints in a not-so civilized manner or whatever, but he's talking down on me.

Lately when we disagree fundamentally on something he says I don't understand what he's talking about. Not only that, but he cuts off the conversation there without explaining himself. When I type a reply on msn before he apparently finishes his story I get told to not interrupt him in such a primitive manner, all the while he hardly uses punctuation.

It just bothers me, he's talking down on me intellectually and I hate it when people do that. I just hate it and it's really starting to annoy the hell out of me.

You just don't understand. End of Discussion.

[Antistia]

Tonight the topic happened to be the fact that I thought that one of my professors on constitutional law's words have more authority/weight to them because he is a senator (member of the Eerste Kamer) when he talks about how parliament works with regards to the laws set up in the constitution and by parliament itself. He disagreed, saying that there wasnt any more authority to it and that authority in an institution of knowledge is inherently bad. So I thought I'd question his point with a practical example by asking him who's words he valued more when it came to explaining how parliament works legally: the words of aforementioned professor or those of a random person on the street.

That pretty much immediately got him saying that I didn't understand what he was talking about and very much cut off the discussion there.

Our subjects do vary a lot, but mostly it's about America and more specifically American influence in the world. Where I'm usually of the opinion that American influence and actions
are good, he usually considers them bad and imperialist. No end to discussions and us throwing sources at each other.

Edit: screw ya Ras

[Kristeas Sunbinder]

I'd say that depends completely on how well founded the authority is.
Authority because it's "an institution" is bad, authority because they have proof that they know what they talk about is good.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority sounds like the issue.

I can't think of any good real life example, or if I'm even saying it right. But if the MIT found a way to make 100% clean energy. Then that'd bring changes, because by testing authority is asserted. If you say fuck that authority, then you say fuck 100% clean energy.

Edit: On America's influence. I'll just say that I hope they don't get any of the Republicans that consider creationism over evolution. Rick Perry and Bachmann hurt my brain D:

[Nithel]

Our own ministers here don't even know the law. I stopped believing in politicians being competent in anything a long time ago

[Antistia]

I agree, Kris. It depends on how well founded the authority is. My point was simply that because my professor is also a senator (not to mention he's a professor of constitutional law for crying out loud) his words carry more weight/have more authority to them when he explains how parliament functions. Much more than a random person's words, but apparently I did not understand what he was talking about. Or in to paraphrase him "I know what you're talking about, you don't understand what I'm talking about.".

It just bothers me, this is a weak spot of me too. I get annoyed fast when I feel people are attacking my intellect. My primary school told me I'd be able to do VMBO at high school, and maybe, with a lot of really hard work and a lot of luck I could do one level higher: HAVO. I ended up trying HAVO first, after two years over there they told me I might be able to do VWO (pre university) with a lot of work and a lot of luck (again). I ended up getting the diploma without having to do a single year twice. It's something I'm proud of (though admittedly I did little these last 3 years) and I just can't stand apparent attacks on my intellect. It's just a weak spot and might cause me to get more annoyed than I need to, I guess.

As for the US presidential election, I'm with you on that. Perry and Bachmann are horrible. Personally I'm hoping for Jon Huntsman to win the republican election. If he wins I'm undecided on whether Obama should be reelected. Though I'd probably like for him to be reelected because I'm not sure if Huntsman can keep the 'extremist' republicans in line.

[Kristeas Sunbinder]

I personaly wouldn't use "carry more weight". If someone with less knowledge than him speaks against him on that topic. It shouldn't be disregarded because it has "less weight". I'd rather say that he's more likely to know what he's talking about.

I might be wrong, but I don't read "carry more weight" as "more likely to be be right". When I hear that someones words "carry weight", I can only imagine it being based purely on social status. That two people can know equaly much about something, but the one with the higher status, and whos words carry more weight, is considered right.

[Nithel]

I think he'd carry weight if he'd be seated in the constitutional court (Grondwettelijk hof). Everything else is a matter of perspective of social status I guess like you said.

Does that exist in the Netherlands btw? Grondwettelijk hof/arbitragehof?

[Antistia]

I personaly wouldn't use "carry more weight". If someone with less knowledge than him speaks against him on that topic. It shouldn't be disregarded because it has "less weight". I'd rather say that he's more likely to know what he's talking about.

I might be wrong, but I don't read "carry more weight" as "more likely to be be right". When I hear that someones words "carry weight", I can only imagine it being based purely on social status. That two people can know equaly much about something, but the one with the higher status, and whos words carry more weight, is considered right.

Edit: I also call it constitutional law because in Dutch it is called "Staatsrecht" and constitutional law is the closest it comes to being a decent translation. It's not exactly the same, we don't just interpret the constitution. We're supposed to know Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke and Machiavelli's theories too because they were important for the development of states etc. It's a bit broader than just the Dutch constitution.

I read it as meaning the guy has experience in that area and is very likely to know what he talks about. He's an authority in his field, so to speak. Does it mean he's always right? not at all.

I think social status has something to do with it, but I think (academically speaking) that socia
l status is derived from the fact that he knows what he's talking about, that he's good at it. So the social status is derived from his knowledge, but it is the knowledge that gives his words weight. It sounds strange now that I read it. It depends on when you consider someone an authority, I think. Either when he is recognized by many as such, or when he has the same knowledge as an 'authority in that field'. In my mind, one can hardly be recognized as an authority in field A if one doesn't have the knowledge to back it up. This knowledge causes the guy to be recognized as an authority. The recognition stems from the knowledge and adds weight of its own.

That's my view on it, anyway. If it makes any sense anyhow. I think one can make this into a nice and complicated discussion when one thinks really hard about it.

Yes and no, nithel. As a general rule you can assume that the Netherlands has three courts.
"de rechtbank" which literally translates to "the court of law".
"het hooggerechtshof" which literally translates to "The high court", I believe the British version is the Court of Appeals. Obviously, you appeal here.
"De Hoge Raad" which literally translates to "the High Council" but in English we call it the Supreme Court. If you want to appeal against the court of appeals, you go here. But only under strict circumstances.

Now, our constitution (article 120) forbids the Supreme Court from judging whether a law is constitutional or not. However, the constitution does not forbid the Supreme Court from judging whether a law is not in line with the Statute of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. They have, however, chosen through their own jurisprudence, to extend the restriction article 120 imposes on them (and every other court in the land) to include the Statute as well. There is however a
law under consideration that might remove this restriction. It's a constitutional amendment, obviously. They've introduced this amendment because the constitution in article 94 gives the supreme court (and every other Dutch court) the ability to judge whether or not a law is in line with a treaty the Netherlands is a part of. If it is not in line with an article from a treaty, the law is declared void by the court (they declare it, for the lack of a better word, unconstitutional). Fun fact! They've done this to the constitution. It wasn't in line with an article from a treaty and they decided that the treaty overruled the constitution! Though the supreme court has only allowed this to happen under very strict criteria.

[Amaryl]

I think social status has something to do with it, but I think (academically speaking) that social status is derived from the fact that he knows what he's talking about,

no, this is incorrect. Social Status, academically speaking is based on who you know, and not what you know. I mean, being a professor(Hoogleraar) is more politics then research and that's just sad. not to mention they're human. and so you get bad ones, you get good ones, you get straight shooters and you get liars and egomaniacs.

[Antistia]

Very true as well, Amaryl. Some people get a nice title because they get a lot of subsidies for their faculty, I agree it's just sad when that happens. Yet I was working under the (maybe in)correct assumption/opinion that he got there fair and square. The thing about knowing people to get ahead applies everywhere though. Knowing people gets stuff done. I know I've a few advantages myself because of the network I have access to as well. As do others.

Edit: also, my choice of words may have been bad, but I wasn't referring to getting a nice professor title specifically as the social status being derived from the knowledge. No, one can be an authority in field X while only having a simple university degree in that field. An extreme case in point is Henry Hazlitt who never even got a degree in economics (if memory serves) but is seen as one of the fathers/great thinkers of the austrian school of economics.

[Eowale]

Fucking great, have to write a PM about my swedish national speaking test, read about 200 pages for my Social Society class test, read 50 pages of biology about the cell structure, do an interview downtown at the library.. Shitty weekend is shitty. x_x

[Morty]

Just when I was supposed to have a break, I had to spend 13 minutes of my 15 minute break waiting for the door to the break-room get unlocked, for then to not get my break at all and run back to my security post.

[Jeanpierre]

no, this is incorrect. Social Status, academically speaking is based on who you know, and not what you know. I mean, being a professor(Hoogleraar) is more politics then research and that's just sad. not to mention they're human. and so you get bad ones, you get good ones, you get straight shooters and you get liars and egomaniacs.

I'm not sure if it's a bad thing. Well.. let me put it this way... I doubt that being judged on "who you know" is an impeccable measure of that person's abilities to be a good professor. But it's not entirely wrong either. If it were cleared from political interests, then a peer review would be a good and valid strategy. Sadly, it isn't stripped from political games and interests.

But being judged solely on 'what you know' isn't a good measure either. A professor has to fulfill three roles:
- Researcher
- Teacher
- Managing research(ers)
"What you know" only handles one of those three roles. And to base yourself entirely on that, is quite dangerous. I've seen plenty examples of that. I've seen professors who have acquired a certain status through their level of research... but who are completely incompetent in teaching or managing the research lab they run. Whatever value they have had as a researcher, they destroy by gimping the people that depend on them. I assure you that some of these people would, if any official term and examination would permit it, qualify to be labeled as "socially retarded".

[Guest]

Sprained a muscle in my lower back just before going to sleep last night - which meant that I didn't get any sleep at all as I get EXCRUCIATING PAIN! whenever I try to lie down.
And I was supposed to get a lot of stuff done today

[Kristeas Sunbinder]

no, this is incorrect. Social Status, academically speaking is based on who you know, and not what you know. I mean, being a professor(Hoogleraar) is more politics then research and that's just sad. not to mention they're human. and so you get bad ones, you get good ones, you get straight shooters and you get liars and egomaniacs.

I'm not sure if it's a bad thing. Well.. let me put it this way... I doubt that being judged on "who you know" is an impeccable measure of that person's abilities to be a good professor. But it's not entirely wrong either. If it were cleared from political interests, then a peer review would be a good and valid strategy. Sadly, it isn't stripped from political games and interests.

But being judged solely on 'what you know' isn't a good measure either. A professor has to fulfill three roles:
- Researcher
- Teacher
- Managing research(ers)
"What you know" only handles one of those three roles. And to base yourself entirely on that, is quite dangerous. I've seen plenty examples of that. I've seen professors who have acquired a certain status through their level of research... but who are completely incompetent in teaching or managing the research lab they run. Whatever value they have had as a researcher, they destroy by gimping the people that depend on them. I assure you that some of these people would, if any official term and examination would permit it, qualify to be labeled as "socially retarded".

"What you know" is integral to atleast 2 of the 3roles. Reasearch obviously. You can't teach if you don't know. I suppose you can be a manager even without the knowledge, leaving the know-how to the research drones, but if the manager knows what the research drones are doing, that's much better.

Developing the ability to do proper research is different than becoming a good Teacher/Manager.
Teaching/Managing is good/bad depending on the results. Good research doesn't lie in the results, but how the results are attained. Was the relevant literature found and interpreted, reproducability of the results, if the proper precautions were made.

[Amaryl]

I'm not sure if it's a bad thing. Well.. let me put it this way... I doubt that being judged on "who you know" is an impeccable measure of that person's abilities to be a good professor. But it's not entirely wrong either. If it were cleared from political interests, then a peer review would be a good and valid strategy. Sadly, it isn't stripped from political games and interests.

But being judged solely on 'what you know' isn't a good measure either. A professor has to fulfill three roles:
- Researcher
- Teacher
- Managing research(ers)
"What you know" only handles one of those three roles. And to base yourself entirely on that, is quite dangerous. I've seen plenty examples of that. I've seen professors who have acquired a certain status through their level of research... but who are completely incompetent in teaching or managing the research lab they run. Whatever value they have had as a researcher, they destroy by gimping the people that depend on them. I assure you that some of these people would, if any official term and examination would permit it, qualify to be labeled as "socially retarded".

Well from the technical academical view point. to which i'm exposed to everyday as an engineer working for a private company located on an university. (so we can hog their facilities)

There are some sad things, that make it all about politics and status ( and not about research, teaching, or managing. )

The first issue is Appointing people to Vacant Seats as in appointing new Professors to research groups. at my university there have been 2 groups, from the most successful technical groups on our campus, without an official proffesor, just appointed interim ones. Why? because the standing proffessors, didn't tolerate the actually damned good candidates that do off the charts research. since that would potentially spoil their Status. since part of a proffesors status comes from the level of impact his research has. how many publications in high grade magazines?

and I can tell you, that has been such a nasty business... its rediculous. the back-stabbing, bad mouting, slanders... it looks like an American presidential campaign.


Second point, is funding for research. and unfortunately the really interesting projects, the really possibly ground breaking projects, aren't getting funding over the popular topics, because there is no "potential use for it in the next 3 years" type deal. and that's just sad, and most professors know that, and they way they get funding for the actual good research is to apply to so many crappy ones, that they can siphon parts of the funds to the actual good projects.
Which means you have to kiss a lot of ass. really, ten inches of shit on your tongue ass licking.

and then you're being rewarded by actually who you know, and not your quality of your research since part of your status is also: "how big is my group? how much funds do i get?" and unfortunately having a lot of crappy projects still mean you get a lot of Meh Articles in low impact journals. but still a resume of 300+ publication even if they all suck is good for the professors ego!

not saying there aren't any good ones, certainly not, but the point is they're human, and there's really no need to put them on a pedestal. as this shit has proven: http://www.dutchnews.nl/features/2011/09/meat_eaters_absolved_professor.php

you become an expert in a field because of what you know, and how you use that knowledge not due to titles, institutions, previously raked in prestige, where you work or worked or what people thought of you.

even though all those things, managed to get you your expertise. and hearing the anecdotal shit about how things work is extremely interesting it doesn't defacto mean they're better or more knowledgeable in a field then others with a different background.

that said, "authority" is ultimately only based on who you know and who knows you. since I recall a professional news caster expert who just went to news agencies and said "i'm the expert" while he was unemployed. he came on tv for being a weapons expert, psychologist, and some other things...

[Jeanpierre]

"What you know" is integral to atleast 2 of the 3roles. Reasearch obviously. You can't teach if you don't know. I suppose you can be a manager even without the knowledge, leaving the know-how to the research drones, but if the manager knows what the research drones are doing, that's much better.

Hm... Let me put it this way.. You need to know what you're talking about to be a good teacher, but knowing what you're talking about is, in no way, any guarantee that you're a good teacher. I've had too many professors with ace research qualities that didn't manage to explain even the most basic of things.
To put it bluntly, perhaps I've seen a bit too many examples of the "genius to the point it becomes a brain defect". Literally, those people seemed mentally incapable of cooperating with other people or grasp what it is to be a teacher. People so lost in their head with research, that they even fail to acknowledge the relevance of teaching... or worse even, understand basic human behavior. There are "professors" who deem students unworthy simply because they still need to be taught an introduction to their field of research.
You can't filter out such people based on knowledge. You can't filter them out with some sort of test on paper because they'll probably ace it. You need a form of social control to filter out people like that.

[Sponsored content]