Readit NewsThis horrible game theory bullshit being applied to all work interactions is why I will never work for an American company again.
It does, there just needs to be a proper model of how humans work to back it up. The usual mistake is using logic to prove why a person is right instead of to work out why the relationship is going wrong.
People who don't use logic to guide their interpersonal interactions cap out in some fairly shallow waters. They are more easily suckered by emotions primed to respond to looks and the present instead of properly aligning the relationship for the long haul. The easiest path to push back against those inbuilt biases is logic - there needs to be some set of principles beyond emotions to use as a guide.
One obvious example where it falls laughably short is in interpersonal relationships. Trying to logic your way out of an emotional conflict just does not work
There is a theory that Alzheimer's as we currently understand it, is not one disease, but multiple diseases that are lumped into one category because we don't have an adequate test.
This is also where some of the controversy surrounding the Amyloid hypothesis comes from.
[1] https://stanforddaily.com/2023/07/19/stanford-president-resi...
To be honest, it's hard for me not to get kind of emotional about this. Obviously I don't know what's going to happen, but I can imagine a future where some future model is better at proving theorems than any human mathematician, like the situation, say, chess has been in for some time now. In that future, I would still care a lot about learning why theorems are true --- the process of answering those questions is one of the things I find the most beautiful and fulfilling in the world --- and it makes me really sad to hear people talk about math being "solved", as though all we're doing is checking theorems off of a to-do list. I often find the conversation pretty demoralizing, especially because I think a lot of the people I have it with would probably really enjoy the thing mathematics actually is much more than the thing they seem to think it is.
Unless that query goes over the Internet to another continent, that's a really long time isn't it?
This might seem nitpicky, until you’ve had a recruiter ask how skilled you were in JIRA and demands you tell them a story about a time when you used advanced JIRA skills to solve a problem. It becomes a checklist of things that really don’t matter that much compared to actual skills.
Employers, this is also why you can’t find good candidates. They might not have a lot of “skills” in the way they’re being defined.
The recruiter was tasked to find candidates with a recommendation system background but the only way they know to do that is look for that exact word.
I disagree. Innate talent / affinity and transferable experience exist. I agree with "10% inspiration and 90% perspiration"; however, given equal effort, people with innate talent are going to win over people with no or less talent by a wide margin. This applies to everything. Gym / sports performance, muscle growth, work that needs IQ, work that needs EQ, life events that need resilience, general happiness, everything. Genetics is hugely definitive.
And I'm convinced some people bounce back more easily after a failure because failure is genuinely less hurtful for them. They don't need to "hold onto that mindset"; they just have it.