Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

What? "Not meddling in things you don't understand" is a great principle. If you don't know what the fuck you're meddling with, any success is pure chance. I know you're a Hilary fan, but that just doesn't make any sort of damn sense.

[mainiac]

What? "Not meddling in things you don't understand" is a great principle.

And in this case it would mean "Allow Wall Street to appropriate people's money."  So you are in favor of that I guess.  But hey, better not touch that Gordian knot!

[Frumple]

What? "Not meddling in things you don't understand" is a great principle. If you don't know what the fuck you're meddling with, any success is pure chance.

N... no, working when you don't really know what the fuck you're meddling in is basically the absolute most fundamental skill any high level administrator/manager/politician has to have to not be shit. They have limited time and a great many demands on it, which largely precludes an in depth understanding of the processes going on at ground level, and they have to use that time to make effective (or at least largely harmless, which in all seriousness making the game ratings have legal omph would be) decisions. And a great many do, and do so consistently. Many don't, as well, obviously, but that's what makes (one of the) major differences between a good manager and a bad one.

Depending on how you fall on the subject itself, her actions regarding the gaming stuff can be a mark for or against the skill in question. Most of us here count it as a mark against, obviously enough, but there's a lot of folks that wouldn't, and hold that she did the right research with the correct consequent action, including quite a few academics/researchers in the fields studying the phenomenons involved with video games and aggression. Hell, the APA just recently released a metastudy on the subject that suggests that current research favors the sort of course of action clinton took, that experiencing violence in video games is a reliable indicator of increased aggression and lowering or preventing access is a desirable goal. There's some notable problems with it, but that's still a hefty body of knowledge saying curtailing access to certain video games among the youth is probably a good idea. Largely disagree with the findings, myself, but I can understand (if dislike) how someone would act as clinton did, given that sort of research does exist and did when the event in question happened. It's a mark against, t'me, but not a terribly substantial one.

... really, as we should have noticed from the last few hundred years of sciencey stuff, you don't actually have to know what the hell's happening to get useful results. Admittedly it is kinda' important to, because unexpected consequences are a thing, but it's not like there's not plenty of stuff we're buggering about with in good health that was brought about with basically zero comprehension of the underlaying principles. Ultimately, meddling when you don't know what the fuck is going on is how you find out what the fuck is going on. It's a good thing when it's done correctly. An actually good principle would be to meddle carefully in things you don't understand, and try to receive the best results when you do.

[MaximumZero]

Any manager worth a damn knows their own limitations and will hire an adviser or specialist if they don't know enough about a subject. If a politician is too dumb to do something that even the lowest skill retail manager knows to do, that politician should look for a new line of work.

[SalmonGod]

Should say something like "Don't meddle in things you don't understand without the guidance of someone who does."  The skill in being a good high level decision maker is being able to figure out who is a proper source of information and ask the right questions to dig into the heart of an issue efficiently.  Just making decisions because they feel right when you really have no clue is how you get all the organizational inefficiency horror stories.  For example, it's been verified that the new import software we're implementing at work was selected by someone who has no knowledge of the import process, isn't tech savvy, didn't consult with anyone on either of these things, and basically just did a little browsing and picked the first product that looked shiny to his untrained eye.  That's bad meddling, and the consequences have been quite shitty.  He didn't need to understand the subjects he was dealing with when he made these decisions, but he needed to consult people who did.

Ninja'd!

And that's one of the major and escalating complaints with politicians these days - outright refusing to consult experts on issues or flat out telling experts when confronted with them that they know better. 
Prime example that's already been brought up:  Climate Change

[Bauglir]

Any manager worth a damn knows their own limitations and will hire an adviser or specialist if they don't know enough about a subject. If a politician is too dumb to do something that even the lowest skill retail manager knows to do, that politician should look for a new line of work.

Yeah, but that's exactly what she, and all other politicians, do? What, do you think she came up with the idea all by her lonesome? Shit, I don't even think it was a good idea and would dramatically have preferred she not do it, but I can't believe people are seriously suggesting politicians don't have enough people giving them advice. What, exactly, do you think lobbyists do? Sure, they're by and large corrupt, scum-sucking parasites, but they constantly give politicians ideas and present (heavily biased) evidence and arguments in their favor that are designed by very competent people to sound plausible and fair.

shit when did i start channeling mainiac

[mainiac]

Good, good.  Unmask the hidden assumptions.  Apply skepticism to cynical impulses.  Feel the pagmatism flow through you young forumite!

[penguinofhonor]

But it's obvious she didn't listen to anyone. If politicians really tried to stay informed on legislation they were passing, they would only make decisions that I agree with.

[Twi]

But it's obvious she didn't listen to anyone. If politicians really tried to stay informed on legislation they were passing, they would only make decisions that I agree with.

No no, she obviously listened to the wrong someones

That aside, I believe Congress is SUPPOSED to have at least some apolitical (appointed? bureaucratic? ??) advisory boards. Its own personal and totally not biased experts who are not lobbyists, if you will.  Maybe that's the thing I'm thinking of when I remember a Republican Congress getting rid of an office of technology because who needs to know about science or reality or anything?

Of course, those advisory boards don't have money to throw at congressmen and lobbyists do...
Or are staffed by lobbyists instead of experts...
Or are removed when they give advice the politicians don't like..
So ehh. A good idea in theory, at least.

[mainiac]

Perhaps it's a complicated issue where a politician is juggling many responsibilities and we are often too hasty to label them biased?

One thing to say for Bernie, he really does improve on that dismal state of affairs with his commitment to not suck up to big money.  Sucking up to big money takes up absurd amounts of politicians times; Thanks Supreme Court!

[Bauglir]

Well, no, this is actually a pretty simple issue, it's just that even the best politicians are in the position of having a shoulder devil who summa-cum-lauded Harvard law and is always there, and a shoulder angel who can only communicate by mail and online petitions. And career advancement always happens to line up with the shoulder devil's argument, so the most powerful politicians are the ones who pay lots of attention to it. The actual issue hasn't got much to do with it.

EDIT: Of course, this is a pretty amazingly clear issue, and most really are a lot more complicated than we like to give them credit for. And, of course, the devil/angel metaphor is an oversimplification.

[SalmonGod]

I'm going to be in the minority here and say that Hillary's video game bill isn't nearly so bad as everyone's making it out to be, anyway.  All it would have done is prevented kids from going out and buying mature content on their own.  The kid has to convince their parent to buy it for them.  This helps give parents more control over what content their kids are exposed to.  I'm personally not a fan of censorship, but I can't see a move that helps parents manage their kids according to their own parenting principles as anything that horrible.  It's the same idea as not allowing kids to buy porn or cigarettes.  There are plenty of parents out there who will supply their kids with the stuff, anyway.  But placing that burden on the minority of parents who are willing to do that eases the burden on parents who don't want their kids to have access to those things.

I'm sure there's plenty of better things to complain about.

[Digital Hellhound]

Wait, you guys let minors buy mature-rated games just like that? Excuse me for my filthy European anecdotes in this thread, but maaan. You don't even know a childhood of getting your parents or older siblings to buy games for you, or the sweet first times when they judge you old-looking enough to just sell it to you. Although, there's always been stores that just don't care (plus nothing restricts digital sales here as far as I know).

[SalmonGod]

Yeah, online game retailing kinda renders the whole issue mostly obsolete.

[Frumple]

@DH: Technically, and pretty close to only technically. Most stores are still entirely unwilling to sell mature content to minors, and most kids don't even remotely have the ability (funds/transportation) to get to and purchase a game without parental/sibling help. The bill in question would mostly have just made the de facto state of things de jure.

Though aye, there's online stuff nowadays. Ain't no scrutiny on gift cards and whatnot, and anybody can lie about their age online :V