|
On April 12 2013 10:09 obesechicken13 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 08:01 micronesia wrote:On April 12 2013 01:13 obesechicken13 wrote:
To all you golfers: how much does it cost to golf? I always picture golfers as business people with too much money and time on their hands and not enough desire to benefit society. Well that is quite the narrow/uninformed view you have. To address the original question, golf varies a great deal. If you don't want to join the fancy club or play at the world-famous course and shop around (courses, times, seasons, etc), you can play rounds for $20-40 dollars without any problem. A bucket of balls at the range is like $5 and short game practice is basically free if you know where to go. That's just your opinion man! I checked prices after posting the question. Also realized it was a bait as it puts golfers in a defensive position. It's definitely on the more expensive side of hobbies but 5-10$ per game and a few more for balls and a cart (sometimes) isn't going to break the bank. I had always imagined it was over 100 for a single game and something like ornate furniture, or fruit bowls, or fancy watches, clothes, or polo, or etiquette. I was taught in my intro to sociology class that many of these things persisted largely to divide the rich and the poor and to form groups so that the wealthy could band together, identify outsiders, and maintain power.
Well, you've definately shown the problem with sociology and its insistence on dividing society in groups. Golf is being played by either 'group', simply playing the game is no basis to form an opinion on rich or poor. Nor is fancy watches, clothes, etc. It may be a minor indicator, but that's all it can be.
|
On April 12 2013 23:50 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 10:09 obesechicken13 wrote:On April 12 2013 08:01 micronesia wrote:On April 12 2013 01:13 obesechicken13 wrote:
To all you golfers: how much does it cost to golf? I always picture golfers as business people with too much money and time on their hands and not enough desire to benefit society. Well that is quite the narrow/uninformed view you have. To address the original question, golf varies a great deal. If you don't want to join the fancy club or play at the world-famous course and shop around (courses, times, seasons, etc), you can play rounds for $20-40 dollars without any problem. A bucket of balls at the range is like $5 and short game practice is basically free if you know where to go. That's just your opinion man! I checked prices after posting the question. Also realized it was a bait as it puts golfers in a defensive position. It's definitely on the more expensive side of hobbies but 5-10$ per game and a few more for balls and a cart (sometimes) isn't going to break the bank. I had always imagined it was over 100 for a single game and something like ornate furniture, or fruit bowls, or fancy watches, clothes, or polo, or etiquette. I was taught in my intro to sociology class that many of these things persisted largely to divide the rich and the poor and to form groups so that the wealthy could band together, identify outsiders, and maintain power. Well, you've definately shown the problem with sociology and its insistence on dividing society in groups. Golf is being played by either 'group', simply playing the game is no basis to form an opinion on rich or poor. Nor is fancy watches, clothes, etc. It may be a minor indicator, but that's all it can be.
With regards to the sociological comments earlier it is true that sociology is more open ended then a lot of sciences or history based fields but this is something that is recognized. There are many ways to interpret most of the data.
While sociology has in the past created many groups, most people have been aware I hope, and we learned about, how there are continuums in all beliefs, not just hard divisions. Not all Christians believe the same thing just like not all conflict theorists identify with conflict theory's beliefs. To put it simply, no one thinks that every person who wears designer handbags is a fag, but as you pointed out it is an indicator.
|
|
|
Ah years of experiences, my favorite part of job descriptions as I sit home, fresh graduate from an engineering masters and still unemployed for a good 7 months now
|
|
|
That video is, uhm...mostly wrong, I guess would be the polite way to put it.
He spends a long while discussing the conflict between talent and practice, while his only actual data is that the world elite tends to have spent a lot of time practicing. This does not mean that talent is not a (or the most) significant factor, it just means that there are no people so vastly more talented than even other hightly talented people that they can outperform them without significant practice.
Furthermore, we have the vague term deliberate practice, which is of course impossible to define, allowing you a post hoc cop out by defining the practice of people who do not achieve expertise as non-deliberate. Also, I would love to see him explaining away, for instance, some autistic savants' penchant for factorizing absurdly large numbers as practice and not innate talent.
He goes on to cook up an absurd explanation for why a group of jews excelled as lawyers, ignoring the fact that jews excel at every single intellectual pursuit known to man, making them disproportionately highly represented among screenwriters, professors, Nobel price winners, chess grandmasters, (...). It is well proven that jews perform significantly better at IQ tests that other westerners, which I assume he also wants to chalk up to a culture of practice and being slighted in their youth.
He rambles on on a similar note about an Asian rice culture. He somehow claims that a genetic predisposition for mathematics is disproved. Apparently, the fifteen hundred years of rice agriculture has had no genetic consequences. Again, he of course ignores the evidence that adopted Asian children raised in western homes in western societies have the exact same advantage on ethnic westerners in IQ tests, which are moderately correlated to mathematical prowess.
With that much nonsense crammed into fifteen minutes, I would not lend the rest of his claims much credibility either.
|
On April 12 2013 01:13 obesechicken13 wrote:Show nested quote +Asking for 7 years of Rails experience when Rails had only existed for 6 years. Yes, this really did happen. A manager creates a generic template for HR to use for hiring a new employee. Neither is completely sure of the requirements of the new candidates but they know ruby on rails is needed. 7 years sounds like a good amount of time. I've heard someone say something similar, as an applicant, on reddit but I don't remember if they were rewarded for calling out the company. It's hard to disagree with the premise of the blog. Competence is competence and it's hard to measure competence within your company without putting people on trials, hiring them for a week or two and seeing if they are capable. If not firing them. But even this is difficult as it makes you look like a mean boss and people can put on a charade for 2 weeks. So we work through proxies.
I have quite a bit of experience - let's say four years - of getting people started at the job and mentoring, with a dash of hiring/interviewing on top lately. Charade for 2 weeks? Not going to happen. The questions people ask, and the questions they are not asking are very telling.
There is this special kind of 'smart' question that is a dead giveaway. And don't get me started on people that have no reading comprehension whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
