Btw, you never responded to this, particularly the part where I tear you apart.
Yeah, I have it open on a tab but I haven't gotten around to responding to it yet. Going through the interview process which is surprisingly involved.
Neither are the vast majority of classes.
Vast majority? I'm not sure about that and you should be skeptical about your ability to discern between challenging and not going in. In particular I think you probably overestimate your math skills/underestimate their value, even to non-STEM fields (I will, generally speaking, join you in shitting on the "well rounded adult" argument for GE but I
thinkknow there's a lot of needless hostility and wasted time between STEM and the humanities borne of simple ignorance of the bare fundamentals of the respective disciplines, stemfags generally being far worse than their counterparts). I certainly did going into higher education.
Yeah, business majors tend to be a pretty poor choice in terms of earnings, actually, and no doubt the people tend to be dumb. Then again, I'm not interested in a legitimate career or other people. Like, in the classes specific to your major, computer science, did the other students generally really make that much of a difference? You love the subject, so the discussions may have been enjoyable for you, but within the classroom environment I don't see myself having much interest in people (Never have, although I'm trying to change from being the type of person that feels others are just part of the background.). It would just be something that could be genuinely helpful and I would enjoy reading about. Ideally if you really want to learn about something you're an autodidact and learn far more on your own than you do in a classroom, but I've considered that there are benefits, I could definitely use the increase in psychological well being from being around people and some structured environment, a bit of externally induced discipline.
Well there's direct and indirect benefits from having smart peers. In CS there probably wasn't a lot of direct benefit outside of the handful of, generally reviled, team projects. In philosophy and the better math courses having intelligent vocal participants really did make a world of difference, both those fields having a history in dialectics. The one sociology course I had to sit through I went from "this sucks" to "fucking kill me now" as a result of how intellectually barren the vocal subset of the students were. I have no particular objection to sociology as a field, it's just my sample size 1 negative experience with it was so profoundly terrible that I felt compelled to block out as much of the course as I could.
Christ you're salty. Who needs a shaker, people should just ask you to rub your fingers together over their food. You don't understand economics/how the world works. I'm not saying I fully disagree with you, but your viewpoint is too far to one extreme.
Har har. "Moral cancer" is a bit extreme to be sure, I am somewhat biased by my background of course and I don't fully believe that. But I do legitimately have a hard time finding the value proposition of most the roles associated with a business degree.
What if they simply fill a role that arises from the ugly reality of human nature, group/social behavior?
Sure, I'm fully willing to accept there is some quirk of our society that necessitates these people existing but I'm not sure it's any better to be a malignant symptom of a disease than to be the disease itself. If the 21st century image of corporate/managerial structure is the effect of some simpler cause then all we have is reason to terminate that cause as opposed to the effect. And remember that I'm an authoritarian socialist, I have no qualms with authority or enforced structure a priori nor with submitting myself to same. The issue is that N corporations times M people not producing a direct work product (that is to say, managerial types) for values N and M found in the US today
far exceeds the number of capable tyrants we've got which leaves use with the inescapable conclusion that we have the vicious rather than necessary type of bureaucracy on our hands.
Besides, think out side of your field, your social circle/environment and past that molds and skews your perception. Are most people that good, are they really that productive at work? How much time is generally devoted to actually working?
Sure, even among my social circle and peers I see tremendous waste. Hell, I spend more than half the day I collect income for on things that don't produce a
penny for my employer. But that's not an argument for the services business majors provide. Putting a professional servant to corporate hierarchy on top of the laziest son of a bitch there is isn't going to produce an additional ounce of work product.
How many are making a significant positive contribution, a difference? Although you do have a leftist mentality and are in the pinko capital of the US, probably experience some jadedness/resentment, which makes business types seem worse to you and overlook, not understand, some of the necessary function they provide. Charisma matters. Think about the fundamental value of human communication, the evolutionary roots, eons of a process leading to this remarkable complexity, how so much of the world has been built upon sounds we make with our mouths and vocal cords and symbols we created.
Well, communication matters. But communication between humans is not the same as charisma. Charisma is convincing people of a thing beyond the inherent worth of the argument, charisma is sophistry in contrast to socrates. Charisma is, without a doubt, power and power is very important but it's only good in so far as it's used to good ends and the capitalistic system that exists today actively turns charismatic power towards bad ends, specifically the extraction of labor towards unworthy causes and subjugation of the proletariat.
Many of the most remarkable and important people in modern history have been business people.
Sure sure, but was that an inherent element of what made them important or something necessitated by the social system they existed in? I'd argue the latter. Thinking of america's "proud history of invention" I think most successful businessmen were as much because one needs to be a businessmen to be a successful inventor as opposed to being a successful inventor on strength of being businessmen. Consider it this way: are there any important and remarkable american businesspeople who weren't some other kind of more academic class? Maybe Ford... that's it. Now think about remarkable/important americans as a class. What portion of them were
not business people? A significant part (I'd argue a majority, but that's besides the point). If one class of people is a near proper subset of another I think that's a strong argument that the special subgroup is not privileged but rather incidental.
The vast majority of computer programmers are simply cogs who have produced nothing remarkable and you know it.
Sure, but the interesting metric isn't "did something remarkable" so much as "did something worthwhile" which are two different things. My objection to business types isn't that they don't do anything remarkable but their median case doesn't do anything worth doing at all. And sure, even under that consideration the prospects of a programmer are pretty dismal but it's still better than being a "businessman". In any case I didn't pick my field because I thought it was where the biggest impact could be made but because it's what I'm good at, it's where I personally have the best chance of doing something worth doing.
That's right, I said it. Outside of your field, try talking to someone about what you do, what you've accomplished, and see the reaction you compared to someone who runs a successful business, even if it isn't novel. To non-autists it's boring and you know it. You may be under-appreciated and the general population may lack understanding, but even if that were remedied this would still be true.
If public appreciation of a profession were correctly proportional to the social utility that class provided then I disagree, programmers (including computer scientists) as a class have done more for our society per-capita than people who's primary occupation could be best described as "business people". Although I certainly wouldn't disagree on the point of people considering my trade boring. Actually I think programmers are probably a bit over appreciated, the ADD plagued population see shiny apps and facebook, mistake them for something that isn't a waste of human life, and lay that dubious accomplishment at the feet of programmers.
And aren't you working in finance and have recently, multiple times in the past in fact, talked about floating around the idea of one day starting a business or doing something related to high frequency trading? After everything you just said, do you not see how hypocritical that is. And what about the salary you're making and your projected peak salary? Remember that time you mentioned thinking about a worker in a food service position and it leading to you questioning our economic system? I swear, fucking stempremacist techbro future neo-yuppies.
Sure, I am undoubtedly a hypocrite. I profit on a system I detest and my surplus value fuels, in some part, it's villainy. I admit it, but do I need to remind you of your own hypocritical life choices? Aren't you the one who's always touting how being a hypocrite doesn't mean you're not right?
Besides, even if I'm a grossly inefficient money sink I still beat the average on the meager portion I donate to far more efficient projects, and perhaps on strength of whatever contribution I stand to make over my life to the state of the art in my field.
I intent to out earn you within the year (In terms of monthly income), and rub it in your face when it actually happens. You need to learn your place and be taught a lessen in respect, gratitude, and manners, code monkey.
I'd love to see it but you should know by now I don't consider money a measure of human worth, considering I make a respectable income and pretty much hate myself.
