As I’ve discussed before, not every idea I have is a winner, nor am I capable of stretching out every idea that comes into my noggin into a full-length article. However, these are some nagging thoughts that have hit me lately that I’ve felt the urge to write about.
Another False Dichotomy: Knowledge or Experience
I have not been subtle about dunking on false dichotomies in the past, and deservedly so. Those of us who actually paid attention in philosophy class learned about logical fallacies and came out of that semester well-equipped to spot them in the wild. However, a trend has once again resurfaced on LinkedIn and similar communities regarding the age-old Experience versus Knowledge debate. Unsurprisingly, nearly every take is a garbage one, considering the creator’s willfully omit a ton of context (gee, someone should write a book about that). So today, we’ll go over this utterly tone-deaf discussion and break down the reality of the situation. I can’t tell if that high-pitched shriek is the sharpening of pitchforks or the tinnitus from listening to such a ham-fisted topic for so long.
Many of these memes paint the knowledge side of this debate as a static person who has a wealth of information that has never been applied. Generally speaking, if someone trying to present truth is using such a reductionist view of the side they oppose, be wary. Setting aside the obvious fallacy these bot-generated pieces of content love using, it presents knowledge as always coming up short when compared against experience. In fairness, these low-brow videos are correct to a certain degree; we’ve all seen the dynamic play out in our lives. However, reality is far more nuanced than a meme can possibly present.
Nearly anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see how that is problematic; in most endeavors and career paths, a certain level of base knowledge is required for entry. Therefore, it’s not knowledge or experience, but its both. More specifically it is knowledge before experience (similar to work smarter, then harder). Don’t believe me? Good luck getting behind the wheel without completing your leaner’s permit, getting hired into most jobs without some sort of formalized training, or setting foot in a shooting range in most left-leaning states without completing the requisite courses beforehand.
However, much like my smarter-then-harder article, there is a flywheel effect that the knuckle-dragging community refuses to acknowledge. Knowledge comes first, then experience, which is followed by more knowledge, and then the cycle repeats. One is never done learning, and this is evident in nearly every facet of life. Yet, the ones who preach experience don’t want to acknowledge that; whether it stems from sheer ignorance, willful omission, or a desire to rest on laurels is up for debate.
May your flywheel keep spinning…
My Least Favorite Cookie
As I’ve broadcasted not too long ago, I’m on the job hunt. With that, comes a lot of scrolling through company websites. Upon first contact with the website, the visitor is instantly badgered with an obtrusive banner that reminds the user of the site’s use of cookies.
These banners are anything but subtle, in fact they are closer to outright panhandling rather than cautionary signs. We as a society would never tolerate a human aggressively coming up to us and following us around in public spaces. Don’t believe me? Many cities outlaw panhandling because of the sheer nuisance it is to residents and commuters alike. However, since this invasive behavior happens electronically, that somehow means that we are supposed to go along with it for some unexplained reason. The employer-to-be certainly does not need to know where the applicant surfs on the internet after visiting their site, nor do they actually need the applicant’s IP address or geographical location. If that last point is a deal-breaker, then parse that out the old-fashioned way: by asking if they can commute to the worksite during an interview.
However, it is not just would-be employers that are constantly trying to surveil you (and no, I promise this isn’t yet another Libertarian rant). Random one-function websites have embedded these as well. As a fitness enthusiast, I like to use certain calorie-burn calculators, only to be met with a restrictive banner that bars use of it’s website until you acquiesce to their data-scraping ways (subtle data-scraping is best data scraping; just ask The GOAT). Since this site lacked a competitive moat, I naturally exited that trash domain in favor of one that gave me the simple calculation I was seeking. Therein lies the hidden dynamic of excessive cookie use; cookie-riddled sites drive away visitors. Here’s a novel thought, if you want more information about your customers, then talk to your fucking customers. Better yet, offer a good product/service/experience and people might just open up.
Barging in and demanding data is not winning you any customer loyalty; I’ll take my MBA now…
In Critique of Fetishization
Fetishization is an overused term that doesn’t get nearly the scrutiny it deserves. Typically, when that term gets used, it is almost always in the context of another person being ogled. This is understandable, and let me be clear; no one deserves to be treated like an object. However, the term itself is more exclusionary than we might realize.
In it’s most literal (and hence, most common) use, it refers to a person of a different race than the speaker, who is being fantasized about solely because of their appearance. It’s the difference of the targeted person from the speaker that is encouraging the use of the term. However, people of the same color as the speaker get fetishized as well, though society chooses not to acknowledge it (and to be abundantly clear; both instances are bad). Broadly speaking (not something I enjoy doing, but this topic basically requires that); segments of white men are known to fetishize Asian women, as in they are disregarding the Asian woman’s individuality and treating her as nothing more than an object of desire. Yet nobody says that blonde Caucasian women are fetishized, despite the fact that they are often objectified as well, solely because of a few aesthetic features. The issue here is that term itself is inherently calling attention to the targeted person’s status as an outsider. Hence, the term has a heavy implied racial component to it, despite the fact that objectification occurs across all colors and languages.
The other tricky part about the term is that the root of the word fetish also implies that the behavior is an innate part of the speaker’s identity, and hence little can be done about it (not always the case). For example, the sentence Bob fetishizes Asian women implies that Bob’s actions are rooted deeply within his psyche and he is virtually powerless over it. Many could view the sentence as Bob is almost as helpless as the group that he is slack-jawed gawking at. Thus, Bob is absolved from his behavior. However, the sentence Bob objectifies Asian women is far more fact-based and it leaves little wiggle room for interpretation; Bob is clearly in the wrong.
Moving outside the realm of person-to-person interactions, the term has also taken on a newer meaning of obsession towards an object or an idea. For example, guns are “fetishized”, as are scientific publications, ditto for psychological trauma and a whole host of other objects and phenomena. This isn’t to say we shouldn’t talk about the issues, or even get passionate about them; we absolutely should have in-depth and nuanced conversations about all of these things. But the term fetishize assigns these subjects a level of protection to these items. It is as if criticizing the topic is akin to criticizing an entire group of people rather than just critiquing an idea. Also (Opinion Incoming), it the term fetishize when it comes to inanimate objects or abstract ideas just feels grosser than a crusty tissue.
Let’s stop using the term fetishize and just start being more direct with our word choice.
Home Page 