Re: broken schools

On Mon, 10 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote:

That's horrible.

>
Well, it can be nice too, if you're an introvert or not in the mood
for talking.  =)

>
I'd say it can be less scary or more comforting.  I don't really believe
that any human deep down prefers to be left alone.  My first hypothesis

It's a continuum, not a binary question. I'm fairly sure it is proven that
people do have different social needs. I do not know however how common various
positions along that spectrum are.

Usually there is a talk about the swedish ketchup effect, when
foreigners move to sweden.

>
Ketchup effect?  Wow.  I had never heard of that.  I get it.  The whole
thing comes down at once. :)

Exactly!

I found this difficult when I was living in the US for a year. It was
super easy to go by myself to a bar, and talk to some people. It was
impossible to get to know someone below the shallow facade.

>
I observed the same.  I also observed this in other cultures.  For
example, the Dutch culture.  I found the Americans way more honest and

Ahh, the dutch! The most loathed culture in europe. They are a pain in the ass
generally. Cheap, painfully direct and besserwissers. No one likes dutch people.

close than the Dutch.  My hypothesis for explaining this was that the
United States offers a more trusting community; the Dutch deal with lots
of in and outflows of people from all over Europe.  Europe has much more
loose frontiers, say, than the United States.  I think I'm trying to say
that the United States is more homogeneous.  The Dutch are more smiles
on a first encounter and the Americans less so.  But beneath that the
Americans are really more friendly.

Never trust a dutch guy. He'll happily stab you in the back. I trust americans
infinitely more than I trust dutch people.

Other things I've noticed.  The Americans easily trust what you say.
(Some will be mildly outraged if you don't trust what they're saying.)
The Dutch are so not like that and you can observe that in commerce.

They are a cheap and suspicious lot.

Now, having said that, it's one thing to talk of Americans in the
Midwest, say.  It's another thing to talk of Americans on the East
coast, say.  The parallel I make here is between small city and big
city.  It's not unusual for us to find people more friendly in small
cities.

True. It is a continent, so plenty of differences between the mid west, north
east and south west.

Try to ask what is it to a local on 5th Avenue, New York City.  They are
not even going to look at you---you'll likely feel like a ghost.
>

In the subway, no one talks to each other. People mainstain silence
and look at their phones. Only people who know each other talk on
the subway. Definitely not strangers.

>
Reminds me of New York City.

>
Maybe... I haven't been there for probably 25 year or more. I imagine that
smartphones have infected them as they have infected almost everyone. =/

>
My observations are pre-smartphones.  Before smartphones, people's faces
were buried in books on the subway.  They've just replaced the book with
the phone.

Same here. Or no, actually I think the first smartphones had appeared perhaps. I
feel very old. ;)

This is the truth. A very interesting phenomenon at the moment is the
global fertility crisis.

>
Are we talking about male fertility?  I'm gonna follow that one very
closely.

I think both actually. Not sure however. Maybe you found something?

My bet is that it is a complex phenomenon consisting of chemicals,
unhealthy lifestyles, shifting norms, feminism and demographics.

>
I agree.  It seems that way.  Although I'd remove feminism if we're
talking about male fertility.  But surely women is also involved in
men's everything (and /vice versa/).  There's really no separation.
There never was.

My thought about feminism is more about decreasing social fertility. The
argument, based on my own experience and observation goes like this. Modern,
european feminism is competitive by nature. It makes men and women competitors
and antagonistic. Women start to dress and act as men in order to make an name
for themselves in the workplace.
Men, like me and many others, find this not very attractive and are turned off
those women. The ones who do meet a man, end up being focused on work and not
having time for children.
Most, I think 90% of my acquaintances in sweden have wives from southern europe,
eastern europe or south america or asia, where women are more feminine, behave
like women and want to form families.
This is why feminism contributes to less children being born.

There has ``always'' been a war between men and women.  It's a pretty
sad one, in fact.  It is---to me---much more serious than military wars.

I disagree. I know many people who live in loving relationships full of harmony
and respect.

Well, what I do, to be more precise, is that when she goes to bed, we
usually talk for half an hour or so. Then she goes to sleep, and then
I get 2-3 hours to myself.
>
I need time for myself and my interests, since she is not into
technology and science fiction so the evenings I spend pursuing my
hobbies and interests she has no interest in, so that we can do things
we both enjoy during the days.

>
Of course, it all makes perfect sense.  The burden of the proof is
totally mine because I am the one speaking out unreasonable things.  But
I'm not trying to prove anything---it's too hard.  So stay alert. :) You
don't need time for yourself and your interests.  That's actually false.

Haha, well, this is about what I subjectively value and enjoy doing in my spare
time. So you'll have a tough time trying to "prove" to something else. ;)

Time for yourself and your interests is likely a way for you to feel
like that day was worth it.  But most likely the reason you feel that
way is because there's something wrong already, before that.  You're
living with the assumption that you need to /have fun/ or something like
that.

I disagree. I do it beause I enjoy it. Why do I enjoy it? Like Epicurus, joy is
its own reason. We cannot go further than that. Why does being happy make me
happy? It makes me happy. It feels good to be happy. Why happy? It feels good.
That's about it. You can then of course divide happy up into content, satisfied,
long term happiness and so on.
So doing my own things, that bring me joy are their own reward. Since my wife
does not enjoy them, I don't force her, and since she enjoys me being happy, she
is happy when I do things that make me happy.
The same for her. She has hobbies she enjoys, and that makes me happy even if I
do not partake in them. Then we make each other happy as well.

Human life does not really require having fun.  Fun is not really
something we need.  There's nothing wrong with having fun.  One thing I

Fun, or rather happiness, is for me probably the strongest reason for existence
I know. I believe that the reason for ones existence is entirely subjective and
different from person to person. I do not believe science can say anything final
about it, except perhaps to inform us when we select our reason for existence or
grow into it.

observe in very young kids is that they need no toys.  A little ant,
say, is quite a toy.  But then they're given a bunch of toys.  You know
those those eye-candies that are hung above a craddle?  Babies likely
feel enchanted by them, as they move and shine.  I claim they need none
of that.  In fact, that's too much stimuli.

Oh, but we must make a difference between long term happiness, short term
destructive happiness, and avoidance of pain. Too many toys can give short term
happiness, but long term might not be for the best. I agree with you here!

You don't need your science and your interests.  And I also claim that
you would in fact have a lot more with science and your interests if you
stop pursuing them.  Do your work.  That's healthy.  You do need to
study it.  But guide yourself only by a very rational thing.  If there

For me, guiding myself based on what gives me joy is the rational thing to do.

is no time for your science, then there is no time for it.  It's not a
bad life.  A bad life is an unnatural life.  We've distanced ourselves
quite a bit from nature; it's all very seductive.  Now we need to really
walk in a different direction in order to get out of this.

I think that natural life is a happy life. I think unhappy lives are unnatural
lives.

Waking up early is physically and mentally painful for me. It is
torture. Coffee or no coffee, I have always been a night owl.

>
I was a night person as a teenager and carried that on for many years.
I never thought I'd say otherwise.  But I can easily say it now.  If I
were to go back in time, I wouldn't lose a single night for any
reason---except to stay with someone in the hospital, say.  It's just
not worth it.  Hppainess is physical disposition, which requires
impeccable health.

I'm not so sure. I think positive psychology teaches us that peak physical
condition is actually not necessary for happiness. Many old people, with ailing
health, are way happier than young people in peak health, but with horrible life
styles.

I have been know to pay 200 USD more for plane tickets in order to not
have to wake up before 10 in the morning.

>
That's worth it. :)

Amen! =D

Now I am in the blessed situation to live +1 hour time difference from
my main customers, so that allows me to wake up at 10:00 every day,
and start working at around 10:05. =D

>
Enjoy. :)  That's also good.

I am enjoying it immensely! In 4 weeks I'm off to a 2 months vacation in spain,
france and sweden. I will do some _serious_ fishing!

I remember when I was young,

>
You're still young. :)

Really? ;)

I used to sleep 5-6 hours per night,

>
That's little sleep.
>

to still keep my night time hobby time, while having to wake up at
7:30 and go to work. I shudder at the memory and hope I will make it
to retirement age, with my current lifestyle! =)

>
I'm sure you want to keep all the health you have and even recover
anything you've temporarily lost.  And it's worth it!  That's your best
retirement plan.  Happiness is health in every sense of the word.  Do
not believe the happy people who've lost their health or youth, which is
the same thing.
>