Maybe I’m missing something, but exactly what trade barriers are we enacting on behalf of our auto industry, or for any other domestic industry or job for that matter…? We import gazillions of Japanese, European, and now Korean automobiles without insisting that these countries allow imports of our products on an equal basis. We’re not protecting anything but the economies of foreign countries, nor anyone but foreign workers.

In America (and more to the subject of Ilana’s post) most of the technologists affected were men (and silent types, at that!) who did not take credit for their part in the U.S.S.R.’s demise, and did not make a fuss as their career possibilities dwindled.

[In my new book, if ever it comes out, I speak to this phenomenon: how WASP men, especially, go into the night without a murmur.–IM]

On your second point about manliness —

I wouldn’t worry too much about all that. Hormones will take care of most of it, and real men and real women are two-percenters anyway. Young people are wired to ignore guidance and waste their youth. It’s always been that way. Fashionable idiocy has always been the rage. Once you step away from the mob, it can be quite lonely.

It’s an IQ and character test. Guys like Sully just do what they want to do, what they are driven to do, even though others can’t understand. They are only recognized rarely, as in this incredibly improbable event. And even when they are recognized, you’ll notice most people laud him for all the wrong reasons. They call him a hero, and he’s thinking, “All I did was show what I’m made of, and every pilot should be able to do that.” Heck, half of the people are calling his glider landing a miracle, even! (An insult.)

It will always be thus.

–John–

[Brilliant analysis of the common reaction to Sully’s doing what he does for a living with no fuss.]

Don’t read Ayn Rand until after you take your philosophy courses. She’ll ruin them for you, and your professors will all hate you. They might anyway, if you insist on relying upon and building from axioms. You’re just not ‘enlightened’ enough. Heh.

Or, read her work and then see if the courses are still worth it to you.

–John–

If we are being pragmatic, we should see, plainly, that there is no future for manliness (at least in the traditional sense). Not only that, but I think it does a disservice to young men by confusing them as to how to treat women, and puts them at a disadvantage to be exploited, either politically or socially.

Men like Sully are very few, and our culture is not putting out many more of them. In addition to this, we have women who are demonstrating these qualities of leadership, and, well, masculinity.

Men can’t be traditional gentleman by our cultural climate; we live in a world were women pummel each other in a cage on Ultimate Fighting Championship, where they are routinely blown up in Iraq and Afghanistan, and where they are earning more college degrees than men.

‘Gentle’ men don’t have a place in this world treating women as anything other than total equals. By treating them kinder than their male counterparts – which, if we were being honest, is what a good part of chivalry is – they open themselves up to be manipulated and exploited by women who do not care, culturally or politically, who ride roughshod over these ‘gentle’ men.

Women are inside corporate, military, and government as never before, and are directly competing with men. Why would I treat someone who wants to compete, possibly take my job, any better than my male co-workers? Because she is a woman?

This isn’t fair to men – and anyone who has worked in or around the corporate world has seen examples of women using gentlemen to further their own careers.

If men are competing with women in virtually all fields (and they are), and women enjoy and want this (and they do), then they should not be treated any differently than men.

Traditional masculinity is unfair to men, helps women exploit men, and is outdated. It confuses young men as to how to treat women, and annoys and frustrates women.

We should just let it die already.

My chosen major is Electronic Engineering – and I would like to go to a Master’s course as well as possibly double major in math – and perhaps minor in philosophy. I think that either way, I will end up being in school for the rest of my life; it’s too enjoyable to give up completely – especially the math and theory.

I find that I have more fun with ideas in pure math than ‘regular’ math. Engineers are interested, of course, in practical math – applied mathematics, because of its usefulness.

But pure math, math for it’s own sake, is extremely fascinating to me. I always get a chuckle out of people who make base statements about philosophy and math, such as ‘well philosophy is just a matter of opinion; math is concrete’. Actually, math is a section of philosophy, and it’s based on some assumptions – axioms – which are true by their nature.

This correlates, interestingly, with Austrian economics, which itself is based on axiomatic thinking. It’s bizarre to watch otherwise interesting economists make such stupid methodological errors by constructing models that attempt to prove economic axioms wrong – and then complain that Austrians rely on ‘poor methodology’! Funny stuff – relying on axiomatic deductive reasoning – mathematics – to prove that axiomatic deductive reasoning in economics is incorrect, and can’t be applied to it. (Does this make sense? No.)

Another interesting thing is the assumptions themselves of math. Why does 1+1=2? You cannot break this down any further by propositions; you just know that this is true by the logic of the argument, regardless of whether or not you see this relation in the real world.

This ability to know truth, mathematically (and some would say, ethically as well) is intuitionism. Philosopher Michael Huemer talks about these things more thoroughly in his articles and books on epistemology, but it’s fascinating to see how math’s most basic assumptions – axioms – rely on intuitionism; something that has an initial intellectual appearance that we know to be true, intuitively.

Sorry for the long post, Ilana. I am studying for an exam on the 10th, and my mind is wandering.

I’ll reply to the other half of the post on manliness later.

~Alex

Not all pilots or engineers are top-notch, though. In any profession, I find that only a few percent have the intellectual itch to know as much as they can about things, including their own profession, and strive to be masters at it. [Sure; in every sphere there are the mediocre and the elites. In my “profession,” the worse you are, the better you fare.]

Sully was a glider pilot and expert on emergency procedures preparedness. Two things that really counted that day. Even in my puddle-jumper, I try to always know where I’m going to land when the engine quits. I’m careful about complete pre-flight and anything else that might surprise me. Other pilots, even some instructors, have made it clear that they think I’m paranoid about safety.

I get the same attitude from engineers, too. But only from those I supervise, not from my customers.

Only a few percent of people care, anyway. But that’s why I appreciate what you do, Ilana. I know a two-percenter when I find one!

With that said…yes, the math behind physics is harder. [I can do the simple stuff, not what you do.]

Sully is really really cool. There’s a lesson in grace under pressure.