Re: Social Engineering. {was: Re: Opium [was: Re: freelance sysadmining -- superlong -- [WAS: "Red Hat recommends Windows for consumers"]]
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:44:33 -0600
Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 14:48, David Palmer. wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:41:32 -0800
> > <donw@examen.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 01:35:20PM -0500, Alfredo Valles wrote:
> > > > On Friday 14 November 2003 1:14 pm, donw@examen.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On the upside, those with the brains to move
> > > > > themselves up on the socioeconomic ladder will do quite well.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think they will do so well with the number of guns you
> > > > have in the streets, bullets don't distinguish Ph degrees.
> > >
> > > PhDs and brains don't go hand-in-hand; part of being smart is
> > > knowing how to work within whatever cultural limitations you must;
> > > in the case of firearm-owning Americans, you just need to be smart
> > > enough not to not get on their bad side. Social engineering at
> > > its most useful.
> > >
> > Agreed.
> > Einstein failed a maths exam, didn't see the sense in memorising
> > multiplication tables when they were already written down.
> > The education programme, which varies extensively with any
> > particular environment, is initiated from approved texts. The most
> > successful(individuals?) within the restrictions of the imposed
> > paradigms gains the appropriate marks of social approval. Thinking
> > outside the square and other symptoms of intelligence are looked
> > down upon. and even derogated.
> > The modern 'educational' process is there to teach people how to
> > read just well enough so that they no longer need to think.
> > Regards,
>
> It seems to me that the "most successful" would be those who can
> master the social needs (get good grades from approved testbooks,
> etc), while still being able to think outside the box.
>
These potentially highly dangerous individuals are confined to
institutions known as 'research centres', and if non conforming are seen
as a disruptive and undesirable element by the established social order,
and are further relegated to the classification of 'terrorist'.
Regards,
David.
Reply to: