What our world has become. by Fremdfirma

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

FredG,

Would you like a 6 hour workday instead? A paid month off? A two hour paid lunch?

I'm just asking because you see the 40/50 work schedule as a given, when it's not. It's a social choice.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 3, 2007 12:43 PM

I enjoy the discussion itself and I did see that you apoligized.

I just found myself confused by the attitude behind the manipulation. My current thoughts: You wanted to see people talk about the issue. Fine. You wanted to see discussion become heated. Fine. By telling people to question their views, you want them to... arrive at the answers you are not capable of forming? That's where it gets fuzzy for me, because you don't really follow through by actually reacting to the posted opinions, which implies a lack of interest. Are only certain answers interesting to you?

I don't mean this as an attack. I'm just honestly curious why you bothered to start the thread in the first place, unless it was voyeuristic enjoyment of watching people debate (which, I think, we all here share) without actually caring about the subject.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 3, 2007 12:52 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I can't answer for FremD but I've had the discouraging experience of posting something that I really didn't have an answer to and was hoping for input. My opening posts went something like - gee I was wondering ... and lived very short, miserable and obscure lives.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 3, 2007 1:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
FredG,

Would you like a 6 hour workday instead? A paid month off? A two hour paid lunch?

I'll take them, where can I get them? Oh...France...nevermind.

Quote:
I'm just asking because you see the 40/50 work schedule as a given, when it's not. It's a social choice.

Well here in America we (or more rather they since it was a long time ago) made the decision to have 40-hour work days. If you want something different you've gotta be able to choose your employer very carefully which most people aren't. So while what you are saying isn't necessarily wrong and I sort of agree with the idea, in America it is almost a given. Unless you are willing to lead the revolution, because I'm not (requires too much punctuality

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 3, 2007 1:48 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think Americans have "hurry sickness".

Maybe the answer is not how to function in a society frantic to cram in 'more', but how to create a society that is comfortable with enough.

This is why I wanted you for President lo those many months ago. This is the point of the whole thread IMO.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 3, 2007 2:13 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
By telling people to question their views, you want them to... arrive at the answers you are not capable of forming?

Perhaps a little, and there's no lack of interest on my part - I do not often "Thread Hover" but this one has my attention in such a fashion, you bet, all of the answers are interesting to me in that I am trying to comprehend, to understand, a concept that is utterly foreign to me and my way of thinking, and put it into some kind of workable context where I can get a mental grip on it.

I care a lot about the subject as we're seeing more and more mental aberration amongst the general populace seemingly as a direct result of social pressures, and was wondering about their impact balanced versus the need (as some of you mentioned) for a certain amount of social order, which is where I start to get lost because my concept of the necessity of social order is probably every bit as alien to you, as the commonly held concept is to me.

How much structure is enough ?
How much is too much ?
Where should this line be drawn ?
What makes it needful ?
Where do these standards even come from ?

These are just a mere few of the questions I can *NOT* answer because of a radically different thought process, or rather, cannot answer on a greater social scale because it's like asking a beetle how to run an ant colony, you see ?

And so my hope is to get you folks, who are generally a pretty sharp bunch, to share YOUR thoughts on the matter so that I can get a grip on how important social order is to you and how much of it that you feel is necessary - I dunno if I can get this one across with mere words, or if it even can be... I feel a bit like a blind person trying to get someone to explain the color blue to them.

I care a lot about the subject, enough to want to offer or work towards a solution that may or may not even come in my lifetime, but I can't do that if I cannot get enough of a mental grip on the concept itself to even have some frame of reference on it.

Not sure if that'll make sense, but there you have it.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 3, 2007 2:37 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Well here in America we (or more rather they since it was a long time ago) made the decision to have 40-hour work days. If you want something different you've gotta be able to choose your employer very carefully which most people aren't.

So speaking of people doomed to endlessy repeat the past... they didn't "make a decision" for a 40-hour week, it took strikes and demonstrations to get it.

Quote:
On May 3, 1886, August Spies ... spoke at a meeting of 6,000 workers, and afterwards many of them moved down the street to harass scabs at the McCormick plant in Chicago. The police arrived, opened fire, and killed four people, wounding many more. At a subsequent rally on May 4 to protest this violence, a bomb exploded at the Haymarket Square. Hundreds of labour activists were rounded up and the prominent labour leaders arrested, tried, convicted, and executed

You can get the same effect today by intelligent voting. But that means you have to be able to imagine something different to begin with.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 3, 2007 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
How much structure is enough ?

*Holds fingers about 2.5 inches apart* About this much

Quote:
How much is too much ?

*Moves fingers another inch apart* About this much

Quote:
Where should this line be drawn ?

*Points at a spot in between fingers* There.

Unless you can give me a specific method of quantizing structure these are the best answers I can give you, and the problem with asking the question is that you will get entirely different answers based off of who you ask and how granular you are with the question.

Quote:
What makes it needful ?

Short answer, Agriculture. Long answer, the need for social structure arises when a civilization advances to the point where specialists are required for maximum efficiency. When everyone is a generalist and family units provide all their own tools and supplies (except for the occasional trade with a neighboring family unit) there is little need for rules governing social interactions, everyone acts like their family unit teaches them and no one gets offended.

Once agriculture is developed family units start to group together and significant personal property (as opposed to communal property) becomes feasible, necessitating cross-family rules so that the different units can work together effectively even when they haven't necessarily been taught the same thing (i.e. "this is what is right, that is what you do in public").

As time goes by there is more and more specialization and cities are born, in a city nearly everyone is completely incapable of supporting themselves and thus it is essential that rules be in place that ensure the functionality of the city, remove even a small part and the whole becomes unstable. Thus people in cities are more apt to be willing to bow to the demands of society then people outside of cities who are frequently more independent.

While the intent is to facilitate social functionality rules are often made that have no bearing on the ability of society to function, these rules come from two places. One after rules have accumulated for a while certain people are placed in the position of enforcing rules, these people naturally want there to be more rules so that they can have more control over the people they watch over (politicians). Two, at some point after language was developed it became possible to discuss non-existent ideas, once this happened explanations for previously unexplainable events became possible (god). The people who spent the most time thinking about "god" would naturally anthromorphize(sp?) the idea and then assume that this "god" had some sort of plan or moral ideas of its own, these people would then attempt to get others to agree with and abide by these ideas creating religion. Both of these create castes who have it in their own best interests to create and spread new rules and thus we end up with enormous amounts of silly and or unnecessary rules. Though many of them are still necessary and useful.

The preceding section is entirely a somewhat informed opinion, please feel free to pick it apart if you know facts that contradict said statement.

Quote:
Where do these standards even come from ?

See above

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 4, 2007 6:52 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Printed it out, Fred, i'll have to pick at it en route, cause i have to be in CA shortly to discuss some things with folk...

imma be away a bit, but it's kind of a slap in the face for me to be discussing this and suddenly needed to assist yet *again* in the legal and other support of persons, yet *again* abused and beaten by badge wearing scum.

There is no "few rotten apples", there is no "isolated incident" - it's WHAT THEY ARE, you're just seeing them without the mask on.

And yes, I am very angry, very, very angry - why not just hire the fuckin bloods and the crips to enforce order, it'd be about the same fucking thing.

And so imma read through this printout somewhere en route when i've chilled out a bit, but in all honest truth, everywhere i look, the whole concept of imposed social order seems to be the root of violence and trauma, so it's an awful hard thing to look at this, and then look at the disgusting, sadistic, vile sociopaths we've set to enforce it, and see one bit of value in it.

It's almost like our whole country has become the Stanford Prison Experiment, only, instead of stopping it, we rewarded the guards and hired more.

Might be away for quite a while, as some smaller media enterprises want security consultaions, suggestions and services... to defend them from and against... the police, those bastions of law and order.

Someone explain to me why when the police are supposed to protect and serve, folks now need to hire security to protect them FROM the police, huh ?

Whafuck ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 4, 2007 10:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
The criticism of the situation was meant to be a personal affront to everybody who would've walked past Bell in that situation. "Didn't take time to appreciate the music? You're capitalism's bitch!"

I'm sorry if it's already been said, but I could only make it halfway through this thread. I didn't think the article was actually criticizing the people who passed – the conclusion says, 'Bell understands why he's not drawing a crowd, in the rush of a morning workday, but “I’m surprised at the number of people who don’t pay attention at all, as if I’m invisible. Because, you know what? I’m makin’ a lot of noise!”'

Which, you know, is fair. A lot of people didn't even LOOK UP. I'm not saying they should all have hung around and lost their jobs en masse, but a huge majority didn't even acknowledge his presence. I thought THAT was more of a statement on how we conduct ourselves socially, not that people with obligations aren't able to appreciate beauty or what have you.

Don't make faces.

http://amaranton.wordpress.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 4, 2007 10:52 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

There is no "few rotten apples", there is no "isolated incident" - it's WHAT THEY ARE, you're just seeing them without the mask on.

When I was younger, I wanted to be a cop. Closest thing to a super-hero, I figured. Boy though, when I saw the lunkheads that WERE going to be cops from my High School, that REALLY gave me pause, most of 'em were guys that beat me up in Jr. High, before I got into martial arts.
Another tragic tale of wasted youth....

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 4, 2007 11:45 AM

KHYRON

Marina, that's a valid point and possibly more in line with what the article was trying to say, but here are a couple of things that popped into my head in response:

i) During rush hour in an urban landscape, do you really think somebody who makes a lot of sound is uncommon enough to warrant a glance?

ii) It's possible that people are so used to street musicians that they regard their music as part of the urban soundscape and the source for it doesn't need to be found since it'll just be somebody playing the violin or whatever, not like that's such a rare sight.

iii) Why is it so necessary for people to look at a musician? Simply because it's a person playing? Because he wants to be visually acknowedged to feel he isn't wasting his time? Sure, it would be nice, but I don't look at my CD player or my speakers when music is playing in my room.

I had another thing I wanted to say but I forgot. Ah well...

Anyway, were I in that situation I would have a look (but not stop or even slow down) just to see who that fool is who wants me to give him money at that time of day.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 4, 2007 1:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
i) During rush hour in an urban landscape, do you really think somebody who makes a lot of sound is uncommon enough to warrant a glance?

Well, yes. Abstractly I think that's a fair question, but having watched the videos I think he warranted a glance.

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
iii) Why is it so necessary for people to look at a musician? Simply because it's a person playing? Because he wants to be visually acknowedged to feel he isn't wasting his time?

It isn't necessary, but people tend to look at things when they're processing them. The fact that people were passing by without even looking up (even several who stood in line for the lottery and didn't remember there had been a musician) is just a vivid illustration of how closed-off we become when we enter (as you rightly put it) the urban landscape.

EDIT: It was also interesting to me that a) the people who did notice all mentioned how peaceful the music was (in contrast to the sound of the DC metro) and b) during the last piece, when a few people had stopped to listen, TONS more people looked up to check it out – people who probably would have ignored him twenty minutes earlier.

Baa-aa.

Don't make faces.

http://amaranton.wordpress.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 4, 2007 1:58 PM

There’s no way I would have stopped. As far as glancing-I don’t know; it’s sort of an involuntary response, but I doubt I would have spent much time examining him.

First, I don’t feel any social requirement to pay panhandlers, in general. I pay a fair amount each month to local and national charities, several of which run, missions or shelters. If a street musician needed food, he could probably go to one of those shelters or get a real job.

Second, the article claims that this musician was not playing anything recognizable, which means to most people’s untrained ears, including probably my own, it sounded a lot more like noise then music. Which means it very likely wasn’t very distinguishable from background noise that most people tune out. I think most people are used to their own variety of music. Shifting between music genres generally requires time to develop an ear for it. That’s particularly true for more complex types of music, such as Jazz or classical. The same is true of fine wines. Go find someone who is not a big wine drinker and serve them a $300 bottle of fine French Bordeaux and watch how quickly they reject it.

Third, during morning rush hour, I’m concerned with one thing, and that is getting to work on time. Reading through this thread, it’s clear that some of you think I should apologize for that, but why? I like my job. Some might say I work too much, but I don’t consider hard work a bad thing.

And as far as this being what our world has come it, I’m not sure what that is supposed to mean, but in the past Americans worked even harder and cops actually policed the streets, so this guy might not have even had the chance. Basically, I sense a degree of snobbery in this thread. I guess I’m not refined enough to give a crap about some panhandler playing the fiddle. Sue me.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 4, 2007 3:31 PM

Did anyone read through the author's discussion comments?

Gene Weingarten: Hm. Why was the premise condescending? I can tell you honestly that the premise was nothing more than a zero-based experiment -- we had no idea how it would turn out. My suspicion was that he'd be largely ignored (though not THIS largely ignored) but other editors felt just the opposite.

I'd like to know if anyone else found the tone of this story condescending. I really tried to avoid that. Frankly, I was glad that the Kantian scholar said the results implied nothing about the sophistication of the passersby. It would have been awkward if I'd been forced to conclude that these people were Philistines, because, deep down, I didn't feel as though that was the case.

As the story said, though I DO think the results implied something disturbing about our priorities.

Your point about the children may well be on target. I wasn't implying, nor do I believe, that the children somehow sensed the quality of the music -- what they did seem to sense is that something highly unusual was happening. Regrettably, the vast majority of the adults didn't seem to see even that.

There's also some background on how they ended up with that location, etc. Thought it might be relevant, since so many people seemed offended by the article.

Don't make faces.

http://amaranton.wordpress.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 4, 2007 3:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by marina:
-- what they did seem to sense is that something highly unusual was happening. Regrettably, the vast majority of the adults didn't seem to see even that.

Unusual? What was unusual? A guy is standing around playing music, where I work there's a bunch of stoners who will literally spend 6 hours sitting outside playing drums (and pissing off the programmers) even if it's raining. What is the slightest bit unusual about a street musician? Was it that he was famous? How many of those 1000+ people could have told you who Joshua Bell was? Was it that he was playing masterpieces? How many of those people could have recognized a single song? The only reason that the people doing the study knew that the situation was unusual is because they set it up that way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 4, 2007 4:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by marina:
Did anyone read through the author's discussion comments?

I read the whole thing, and I’m not offended by anything that was said in the article or anyone’s comments in this thread, but I do think that many of the conclusions that people are drawing, particularly the sweeping conclusions about society, reflect more a feeling of personal failings then society’s failings. The premise being put forth by some is there is something wrong with society because we don’t drop what we’re doing to listen to some violinist. Why? Aside from the fact that society can’t function if people’s attentions spans are that small, we aren’t talking about a society that is starved of culture. People listen to more music and are exposed to more culture then at any time in the history of civilization. They have more free time and pursue more hobbies, then at any time in history. I work a lot, but I also listen to a wide variety of music and take Tango lessons, so why do I need to take time away from my job to listen to a violinist? The whole premise just doesn’t make as much sense as people are trying to attribute to it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 4, 2007 6:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
People have more free time then at any time in history.

I'm pretty sure the opposite of that is true – do you have a particular source for this claim?

But the point of the article was illustrated in the responses of the people who hadn't stopped to listen, after they were told who he was and what he'd been playing – they were legitimately disappointed to have missed it. They didn't say, "Oh, well I hear music every day" they said "Really? Damn."

No one has to like or listen to any particular type of music – but here were people who, after the fact, regretted having rushed past (whether they had to or not). These are the people the author was writing to, people who want to be reminded to slow down. I don't think there need to be any sweeping generalizations drawn from the stunt; if you like the story, take what you will from it. If you don't care, no one will begrudge you that.

Don't make faces.

http://amaranton.wordpress.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 4, 2007 7:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by marina:
I'm pretty sure the opposite of that is true – do you have a particular source for this claim?

How are you pretty sure? I didn’t source anything, it’s a judgment. How do you suppose people lived their lives a hundred years ago? When I was in college I did work on a farm, and while I was only temporary help, it was clear to me that the work never ended. The people who owned that farm got up at the break of dawn and they pretty much worked until the end of the day. Visit an Amish town someday, and you’ll get an idea of what life was like, a hundred or so years ago. If you add up the number of hours that an Amish man works in a week, it is far more then 40 – it’s probably closer to 80. The idea that an old-fashioned and rural lifestyle is one of carefree back to nature stuff is a misconception of urban dwellers. It wasn’t that way at all. Not only did people work a lot more a hundred years ago, but they quite frankly did not have access to the cultural luxuries that I do. So I have a much greater potential to enjoy the free time that I have, much more so then people a hundred years ago.

Quote:
Originally posted by marina:
But the point of the article was illustrated in the responses of the people who hadn't stopped to listen, after they were told who he was and what he'd been playing – they were legitimately disappointed to have missed it. They didn't say, "Oh, well I hear music every day" they said "Really? Damn."

I’m not sure that necessarily reflects a disappointment with having rushed to work or a disappointment at al. I think it’s just as likely that people expressed regret because that’s what they believed was expected of them, or if they did feel regret it probably had as much or more to do with the idea of the experience then with any real displeasure with their lives. And in some cases you could be and probably are right, the disappointment was legitimate. Some people are overwhelmed with their lifestyle, and most people are overwhelmed some of the time. But there is no way to draw any conclusions about society from this and there’s certainly no way to say that this is symptomatic of a social degradation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 5, 2007 5:02 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn- If you look at gatherer-hunter cultures (Kung, amazonia) you'll find that they have MORE free time than we do: they spend only about 4 hours a day on "taking care of business".

Agricultural societies had extended periods of enforced idleness (winter) and civilzations which existed before cheap lighting also had periods of enforced idleness (night). The 16-hour workday and todays go-go-go 24/7 pace didn't exist before the light bulb. Agriculturalists performed more physical labor before, but they were necessarily limited by darkness and weather.

I'm not saying that we should go back to those days. But in a modern economy where we have so many labor-saving devices, why do we have a society where people feel that cannot even spare a glance at something different, non-threatening, and - by many people's judgement- beautiful?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 5, 2007 5:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But in a modern economy where we have so many labor-saving devices, why do we have a society where people feel that cannot even spare a glance at something different, non-threatening, and - by many people's judgement- beautiful?

But who says that they "feel they cannot"?

They didn't. For various reasons. Why is up to interpretation and probably spans a certain spectrum.

And "different" is also a guess. I see street musicians, of varying talent, every day. Every. Day. More than one, generally, a couple of feet apart. My city is not even that big.

I imagine it's the same in other cities. Why, then must I look at them and consider one of them different in order to avoid the judgment box of "culturally bereft by modern life", as apparently all these people are put in because they didn't glance up?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 5, 2007 5:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- If you look at gatherer-hunter cultures (Kung, amazonia) you'll find that they have MORE free time than we do: they spend only about 4 hours a day on "taking care of business".

I don’t believe that at all. It’s about that long to make a single Clovis point.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Agricultural societies had extended periods of enforced idleness (winter) and civilzations which existed before cheap lighting also had periods of enforced idleness (night). The 16-hour workday and todays go-go-go 24/7 pace didn't exist before the light bulb. Agriculturalists performed more physical labor before, but they were necessarily limited by darkness and weather.

I don’t know many people who work 16 hour days regularly. But in an Amish community, my understanding is that the work day is sun-up to sun-down, which is probably around 12-14 hours a day, and that is regular, 6 days a week.

Now as far as long periods of idleness during the winter, that’s true, but that’s not really what I meant by free time, and it’s not what was meant by this article, either. Sitting around doing nothing while you wait to find out if you’ll starve to death before harvest is not what I would call “free time.” Today, I have access to a large amount of culture that I can use my free time to take my mind off of the daily grind..

If I work a 16 hour day, I choose to do so, because I know or believe that it will pay off for me, but I’m not going to die if I don’t. A hundred or more years ago, that wasn’t the case: you worked a 10-14 hour or you died, and when you did have free time, there wasn’t anything to do. Now THAT is stress.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 5, 2007 6:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Why, then must I look at them and consider one of them different in order to avoid the judgment box of "culturally bereft by modern life", as apparently all these people are put in because they didn't glance up?

You're so defensive! Is anyone putting them in that box? I certainly wasn't, and I'm sorry if it sounded that way. My point on that subject was more that the ADULTS were largely (not entirely) either preoccupied with obligations or already had an expectation about the musician (i.e. he's on the street so he can't be very good) so they refrained from interacting with the environment so dramatically they didn't even glance at him. Prejudice? Responsibility? Disinterest? I'm sure all three were present and represented by the passers-by.

Don't make faces.

http://amaranton.wordpress.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 5, 2007 6:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- If you look at gatherer-hunter cultures (Kung, amazonia) you'll find that they have MORE free time than we do: they spend only about 4 hours a day on "taking care of business".
I don’t believe that at all.

It's actually true, and that was going to be my point as well. For evidence you can look to any anthropology book (if you want a particular one, Applying Anthropology by Podolefsky and Brown is an easy but enjoyable introductory readder).

But I think you're absolutely right about the responses – some of them genuinely regretted it and some of them simply "had the music put in context," if you will, once they learned who was performing – which was another of the author's main points (re: Kant).

Don't make faces.

http://amaranton.wordpress.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 5, 2007 6:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by marina:

You're so defensive! Is anyone putting them in that box? I certainly wasn't, and I'm sorry if it sounded that way.

If the implication wasn't that there must be something wrong with not having looked at the musician, would we even be talking about this?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 5, 2007 6:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
If the implication wasn't that there must be something wrong with not having looked at the musician, would we even be talking about this?

We? Not sure. People in general? Yes.

Look, one could read this article and come away thinking it said something meaningful about:

a) lack of appreciation for classical music
b) the rush of modern urban lifestyles
c) the intrinsic value (rather lack thereof) of classical music
d) the interactions between commuters and people living or working on the street

so on and so forth. Most people spent about 35 seconds where they could hear the music (up the escalator and out the door) and I don't know if I would be able to differentiate between a "talented" and an "average" musician in that period of time. So yes, I think there are more layers to the experiment than a straightforward value judgment.

Don't make faces.

http://amaranton.wordpress.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 5, 2007 6:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by marina:
It's actually true, and that was going to be my point as well. For evidence you can look to any anthropology book (if you want a particular one, Applying Anthropology by Podolefsky and Brown is an easy but enjoyable introductory readder).

Amazonian tribes are a pre-civilization culture; that’s not really what I was thinking about anyway. Although I find that incredibly hard to believe. I’ve survived in the wilderness before with no food or shelter. It’s an all day affair just to keep yourself warm, dry and fed. I suppose that environment has a lot to do with it, and maybe in a place as lush as the Amazon, you can gather enough food to survive with only a 4 hours work day. It’s hard for me to envision, but I’ll see if I can find this book and maybe I can learn something.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 5, 2007 6:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by marina:
Most people spent about 35 seconds where they could hear the music (up the escalator and out the door) and I don't know if I would be able to differentiate between a "talented" and an "average" musician in that period of time. So yes, I think there are more layers to the experiment than a straightforward value judgment.

When you even remove the distinguishing factor of talent, you have an experiment that is set up like this:

1) Put something not at all unusual on the street.
2) Watch people not pay it much attention.

The fact that anyone was surprised at all is a value judgment in and of itself. If anything, this article says something about the expectations of the people behind it, so yes, a dicussion about biased people could be started, I guess.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 5, 2007 2:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
why do we have a society where people feel that cannot even spare a glance at something different, non-threatening, and - by many people's judgement- beautiful?

Because if we don't get to work on time we risk getting fired. It's been said before and I'll say it again, if they did the experiment at lunch, or even really any time other than rush hour they probably would have gotten much more staisfying results. The people who went by were planning their days, thinking about problems that needed to be fixed at work and all manner of other things, they tuned out of the usual environmental factors (which includes street musicians) so that they can get to work on time. It keeps getting said but doesn't seem to get through, this was a poorly designed experiment which got predictable results that are being blown entirely out of proportion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 5, 2007 3:19 PM

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 6, 2007 12:56 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

I saw this on t.v. I find it hard to believe that NO ONE stopped and checked this guy out, if only for a minute. I know I would have. Unless I was late. Which is sadly all too often the case.

Humans are critters of habbit. I doubt many expected to come in contact w/ such a musical phenom. They expected a street musician, and that's how their mindset prepared them.

I think you do this experiment a bit further out of the city, you'd see much different results.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 6, 2007 3:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Fred: DO you honestly think that if you're late ONCE you'll be fired on the spot? Most of these people, as the article pointed out, work for the government. It would have been so easy to say "My kid was sick" or "the train was late", and if the person was usually on time and late only by a few minutes I don't think anyone would really care.

And do you think there SHOULD be a situation when being late once gets you fired? I don't. The exigencies of life- late trains in DC, traffic jams in LA, sick kids, spilled coffee, getting mugged- is going to guarantee that everyone will be late sometime. Work doesn't require such precision that you be exactly on-time each and every day, and firing someone is unnecessarily harsh and inefficient. So why do you keep citing that reason when it's obvious that these ppl aren't going to get fired for being late, and that kind of penalty is not preferable and not even efficient? Why would you use it as a valid reason for not paying attention to your surroundings? Why would they?

I deeply suspect that "being late" is just an excuse. I don't know what the real reason it, but "being late" isn't it.

------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 6, 2007 8:09 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

When interviewed later a lot of people said they didn't even realize that there was a musician - including people who were waiting in line nearby. I think this is a tribute to the expectable safe routine. People are able to immerse themselves in their thoughts and NOT keep attuned to their surroundings.

As to what they would be thinking about so deeply on their way to work ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 6, 2007 12:33 PM

THATWEIRDGIRL

Here's a weird suggestion. He was too good.

People say they didn't notice a musician. That doesn't mean that their heads weren't automatically filtering the musak often played in public malls. Because of the quality of the music, they had no reason to look about for a performer. It was flawless. If you heard sweet violin music playing, wouldn't you first assume it was broadcast?

Just an idea I had while standing at a mall entrance the other day.

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 6, 2007 4:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Amazonian tribes are a pre-civilization culture; that’s not really what I was thinking about anyway. Although I find that incredibly hard to believe. I’ve survived in the wilderness before with no food or shelter. It’s an all day affair just to keep yourself warm, dry and fed. I suppose that environment has a lot to do with it, and maybe in a place as lush as the Amazon, you can gather enough food to survive with only a 4 hours work day. It’s hard for me to envision, but I’ll see if I can find this book and maybe I can learn something.

After doing some reading on this it seems clear that SignyM and marina may be right about this. At least some of the experts in Anthropology do believe that at least some hunter/gatherer societies led very leisure-intensive lifestyles. What is curious about this is that one of the cultures often cited as an example are the Bushmen of the Kalahari. My own experiences led me to believe that this was unlikely, or if true could only be true of hunter/gatherers in very lush environments, but the Kalahari is far from a lush environment. How this is a case, I’m not sure. I would theorize that it is probably a result of a communal lifestyle and a very low expectation of standard of living. Hunter/gatherer cultures like the !Kung and !Xu have a society in which the profits of all work are shared with the community, which helps to offset the inefficiencies of hunting and gathering, but just as important is a culture that does not expect much from life a part form a subsistence communal lifestyle. Certainly, it is not something we should strive for in our culture, but clearly it does seem possible to survive with little work.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 6, 2007 6:24 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Certainly, it is not something we should strive for in our culture, but clearly it does seem possible to survive with little work."

Sadly, the !Kung have officially lost the rights to their ancestral land (to Botswana I believe). And a major effort to 'settle' them has been in the works for several years. This has lead to rampant alcoholism, promiscuity, violence, and other drug use.

Whatever they had in their impoverished lifestyle was so vital to their psychological well being they can only make up for its loss with life-threatening addictions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 6, 2007 7:59 PM

"DO you honestly think that if you're late ONCE you'll be fired on the spot?"

No I don't think that if you are late once you will or should be fired. However it is one strike against you, and I don't think lying to your employer is a good idea either, even about small things.

"So why do you keep citing that reason when it's obvious that these ppl aren't going to get fired for being late"

Because like most people, they don't WANT to be late any more than they have to. They don't know classical music well enough to recognize him or his ability or his music so they aren't going to stop and listen to him any more than every other street musician who's halfway decent.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 7, 2007 10:52 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So anyway, the contention, if I get it right, is that people have become droids to the system.

On the other side are the various responses - some people don't like classical music, or violins, or have the experience to know what's remarkable; some people are already mentally at work or afraid of being late (probably not true of the people standing in line to get lottery tickets), some people wrote it off as muzak, ignoring stuff is a habituated response to city commuting, wrong time - wrong place, etc.

But it did touch on what we do as a society, which is work a lot on schedule.

How many people here would like a slower pace ??

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 7, 2007 11:32 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"What our world has become"

Another thought occurred to me - have US cities ever been kind to buskers, especially classical musicians? In general Americans don't have much interest classical music. You practically have to be a snob or geek or French to like that sort of thing.

Hey moron.....Let's see the stats on that! Take the bait Ruse......Actually,... don't. AMERICANS spend more money on 'CLASSICAL' music than the rest of the world combined.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 7, 2007 11:36 AM

CLJOHNSTON108

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...the article claims that this musician was not playing anything recognizable, which means to most people’s untrained ears, including probably my own, it sounded a lot more like noise then music.

Has anybody here heard the piece he was playing?
I posted a link to the MP3 about halfway up the thread, but here it is again...
http://www.arteagency.com/alessio_Bach2mp3/ciaccona%205.mp3

J.S. Bach is the only classical composer I can listen to.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 7, 2007 11:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
AMERICANS spend more money on 'CLASSICAL' music than the rest of the world combined.

To be fair, Americans spend more money than anybody else on just about everything. Though probably only half of those do we spend more than everyone else.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 7, 2007 2:00 PM

THATWEIRDGIRL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
How many people here would like a slower pace ??

*raises hand*

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 7, 2007 2:13 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Well, this seems like the high school smart mouth. He was the kid who talked sh*t about everybody all the time. He was quick to point out the faults of others, and he always managed to drag other people into his mockery (whoever the target was). But you just knew that deep down he was really just try to make himself feel smart by calling other people stupid, or popular by calling other people losers, or valuable by calling other people worthless.

I just sense a lot of that tone in the thread. "Those people are just _______. I would never have done that because __________." It doesn't really impress me much when people try to look cool by talking down about others. I have no problem admitting that I almost certainly would have walked straight past Bell. Not because I hate music (I don't), not because I can't appreciate beauty (I can), not because I hate homeless people (I don't), but because if I were in that terminal, it was probably because I had to go to work. A lot of the posts make it sound like if you ignored Bell in order to get to work on time, you're some kind of soulless automaton. But since when did valuing timeliness and being a hard worker mean that you're a bad person? As has already been stated, putting him in there at rush hour skewed the data. Because I'm sorry, but at rush hour I just have other priorities. Put him in there at lunch time or on a weekend, and I'm there. But I think that it's just a responsible thing to do to recognize that there are times for stopping to smell the roses, and times where that's not the highest priority. Contra some of the posts, I think that that's not only not unhealthy, but a sign of maturity.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html]

So because you would have walked by this man - you are a better human being than those that say they wouldn't? They are lying? Or self righteous?

Casual, I always stop to listen, I always drop a little change and I always put money in a beggars hand. That is who I am and what I do, doesn't make me better than anyone else and doesn't make me self righteous either.

---- plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 7, 2007 7:15 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
So because you would have walked by this man - you are a better human being than those that say they wouldn't? They are lying? Or self righteous?

Well, I'm not sure where you might have gotten that impression, but thanks for the accusations.

I'm not saying I'm better than the people who would stop. I'm just saying I'm not worse. And this thread (at least, when I wrote my initial post) had an awful lot of sneering about the people who would have walked. So my point was not that I'm better than others, but that I'm not worse. You've got the time and the loose change to stop and appreciate? Good for you. But don't look down on me for choosing not to.

And I'm quite sure that most of those who claim they would have stopped aren't lying. But a goodly number have been self-righteous about it--as if their choice is somehow morally superior to mine. And it's that implication that I resent. I think I have the freedom to be entertained at a place and a time of my choosing, especially if I have somewhere else to be. I don't want people acting as though I'm somehow a soulless robot because my choice would have been to keep walking.

Quote:
Casual, I always stop to listen, I always drop a little change and I always put money in a beggars hand. That is who I am and what I do, doesn't make me better than anyone else and doesn't make me self righteous either.

Not saying it does. I'm not sure exactly why you're taking me completely personally. I'm not suggesting that everyone who has said "I'd stop" is a self-righteous prig, and I'd appreciate it if you would recognize that that's not the case. But I don't always stop, and don't always drop change, and don't always put money in a beggar's hand. And that doesn't make me a monster. So perhaps what you're really saying is, "I'm not self-righteous!" to which I reply, "I know; I never said you were." And what I'm really saying is, "I'm not a soulless bastard!" To which I await your reply.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 7, 2007 7:42 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
How many people here would like a slower pace ??

Also raises hand. I'd like something other than a treadmill stuck on high speed.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 12:01 AM