The Yale Problem Begins in High School - <AUTHOR> http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/11/24/the-yale-problem-begins-in-high-school/ <comment><USER2> I've taught at two colleges and based on my (purely) anecdotal experiences and attention to the climate, I'd say that the number of students and faculty interested in stifling or censoring ideas is small but also very, very noisy. They also have no sense of humor and college administrators as a group have no sense of humor or perspective, and they're chronically worried about accusations of indifference or insensitivity (which are themselves as good as convictions). There is a strong economic and career incentive for administrators to take _everything_ seriously and to keep their heads down as much as possible.

Brew this up and one gets a majority of students who are reasonable but a small minority who drive all the discourse.

I don't teach at Yale and have never taught at Yale or schools with similar cultures, so I can't speak to the environment there, but William Deresiewicz did, and his book _Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life_ came out of that and I recommend it. His book _A Jane Austen Education_ ([http://jakeseliger.com/tag/a-jane-austen-education- how-six-n...](http://jakeseliger.com/tag/a-jane-austen-education-how-six- novels-taught-me-about-love/)) is also very good, even for someone like me who does not love Jane Austen.

 _Edit:_ Also, almost all of the censorship calls and nasty behavior / comments came from students on the left. Vox's "I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me" ([http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college- professor-afraid](http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor- afraid)) is congruent with my experiences.

<comment><USER3> The problem with "balancing viewpoints" argument is that it isn't based on a critical ethos and so it cannot progress on the basis of logos. You can have a "balanced viewpoint" and still have debates about _" whether the moon is made of the body of Vince Foster or not."_ There are certain ideas that just don't belong in a university setting because they are _bunk_ and this has nothing to do with diversity of opinion.

It similar to the bogus _fair and balanced_ media argument. News reporting is about reporting the facts _as they lead logically_ so that if anyone would perform the work of the journalist they would arrive at _similar conclusions_ regardless of their perspective or polity. It's very much like the scientific method. Focusing on opinion diversity is a red herring.

<comment><USER4> You're missing the thrust of the argument entirely.

The author does not advocate validating factually invalid statements - see his anecdote in the second article linked in GP regarding "whether or not the economic collapse was caused by poor black people":

"I gave a quick response about how most experts would disagree with that assumption, that it was actually an oversimplification, and pretty dishonest, and isn't it good that someone made the video we just watched to try to clear things up? And, hey, let's talk about whether that was effective, okay? If you don't think it was, how could it have been?"

In other words - in the case of "bunk" it can be summarily dismissed with a proper basis. Which is entirely different from vilifying and personally attacking a person for their beliefs or thoughts which are doing no actual harm to anyone else. People can have bogus ideas and those bogus ideas can be completely harmless no matter how much you might find them distasteful.

Viewpoint diversity is entirely about bringing different perspectives and experiences to bear on a subject.

It works in the hard sciences: [https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151124-kadison-singer- math-...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151124-kadison-singer-math- problem/)

Why shouldn't it similarly be applied in areas of morality, ethics, social science, etc?

<comment><USER5> I think the parent is on to something about the implications of the argument, although it is not how the post's author would look at it, of course.

To really understand an argument, one has to start with its subject. Are we talking about viewpoints or people? What the blog post author focuses on is people:

> Me: Now lets try it for politics. How many of you would say you are on the > right politically, or that you are conservative or Republican?

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how discourse is conducted and should be conducted. _People_ are not on the right politically, conservative, or Republican. People are people, and each might hold or articulate viewpoints or opinions that are on the right politically or conservative. They might be a member of the Republican Party. All of these are elective and potentially temporary.

The whole point of discourse is that viewpoints, opinions, and memberships can change. So to start by framing those as elements of identity needing protection, feeds directly into a framework for discussion that is conflicted. If a discussion must validate and protect all viewpoints (conservative or liberal), then what is going to be discussed?

IMO the right way to approach this situation is to explore the potential consequences of voicing an unpopular opinion. Often, they are far less scary than teenagers might suppose. We should focus on how to give each individual student the mental tools to effectively evaluate arguments, and to manage their anxiety about going against perceived social norms.

Teaching kids to be brave in speaking up against prevailing opinion can help create positive outcomes throughout their lives. We _want_ citizens who will speak up for what they know is right, even if they know they will face trouble.

<comment><USER6> > We want citizens who will speak up for what they know is right, even if they > know they will face trouble.

I thought your comment was really good, but I don't think this conclusion is _quite_ right. The problem is that lots of different people "know" that lots of different things are "right". In my life experience (read: I have no data on this), we don't seem to have the problem that not enough people will "speak up for what they know is right" because they fear trouble, we instead have the problem that not enough people are willing to challenge themselves on what they "know" is "right".

Sorry for all the scare quotes, but my point is that the entire idea that people can know that things are right, and then speak up for those things, is off-base. Certainly, it's a good thing to have a sense for what you think is right, and to be able to speak up for those things, but it's a much better and much harder thing to be open to being convinced that you are incorrect. That's what I don't see much of in our society, and what all schools, and universities in particular, should do a better of imparting to their students! Instead of teaching people to better manage their anxiety about speaking against perceived social norms, we would be better off improving peoples' skills of hearing things they disagree with, and of structuring their own arguments such that they don't drown out that disagreement (for instance, the all too familiar tactic of yelling and/or ranting continuously).

<comment><USER6> Replying to myself, because I've found that my comment ended up supporting the original article, at least in part, which I didn't particularly like or find myself nodding along to.

I guess where I find that I agree with the author is that we could all use to do a better job of really _listening_ to different opinions. But where the author was targeting that advice at the "victims" who shouldn't shout down their "oppressors", in my experience it is more often the case that people with brash opinions that tend to offend people are the ones who "know they are right" and are unlikely to really hear the other side.

But I suppose there is plenty of closed-mindedness, lack of charity, and stubbornness to go around!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> These people act this way because they are elitist. They think they know what should be better than anyone else and therefore there is no need for debate or for rights like free speech.

I find that quite ironic because presumably, these people subscribe to left leaning ideologies. But maybe there isn't so much of a contradiction. They are simply more elitist than they are anything else.

They don't really stand for equality because they do not possess the humbleness to bring themselves to the level of the common person. They believe themselves to be intellectually and morally superior to the common Joe. And yet they want to dupe the common Joe into thinking that they will safeguard his interests while at the same time thinking so poorly of him!

<comment><USER8> The interesting part is not why these people do this, but why they are winning.

<comment><USER9> This is the most interesting part of the whole phenomenon. I think the answer is that everyone is scared to confront them. The modus operandi of this movement is to personally attack the character of anyone who disagrees with them. They've toppled university presidents, CEOs, and politicians. They got Rolling Stone to publish a completely unsubstantiated article falsely accusing a bunch of young men of a vicious gang rape. No one wants to be next.

<comment><USER10> See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals)

<comment><USER11> Wow thank you for this link.

Its interesting to see where these horrible tactics come from.

It certainly frightening to see things like rule 13 "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

This is horrifying to see codified, and what I assume being practiced on purpose, like what those yale students did to their professor, or at least tried too.

<comment><USER10> Yep once you know "the rules" you can easily analyze all these protests or incidents.

<comment><USER12> I am strangely relieved that their perception of power is this basic:

"Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Look how Silicon Valley folks treated Brandon Eich when he made a donation to the majority side in a California proposition.

It's not just academia where you can't speak freely.

<comment><USER14> The fact that other people are free to speak against you does not mean that you can't speak freely.

Free speech does not mean freedom from having your speech acts criticized (quite the opposite; it includes freedom of others to criticize your speech acts.) And, yes, it means that your speech acts may affect your ability to hold a job where you are one of the major public faces of an organization (such as its CEO) and are not capable of dealing with the PR resulting from the association of those speech acts with a public face of the corporation (the same as it would if you couldn't deal with any other PR issue affecting the corporation, even if it _wasn 't_ resulting from your speech acts.)

<comment><USER15> This is a frequently repeated argument and I find it less and less convincing. It is true that America's constitution only guarantees the congress will not abridge the freedom of speech. However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice; a right that is not codified by the constitution because it's simply irrelevant to a constitution. It seems to me that it's up to all of us to tolerate non-extreme dissenting voices, even if we disagree with them.

<comment><USER14> > However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a > fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice

Of course, there is a fundamental right to have (and express) a dissenting opinion or voice.

There is also a fundamental right to have (and express) _displeasure_ with an opinion or voice, whether dissenting or not.

And there is no fundamental entitlement to a job whose responsibilities include managing the public image of a corporation, and if you are unable to do that in the real circumstances and public image problems the corporation faces, _whether or not_ your own speech acts are the _source_ of that PR problem, you shouldn't expect to continue to have that job.

<comment><USER16> The problem is that the current system in practice legally protects certain opinions. E.g. If Eich was pro gay marriage and vocally so, firing him on that basis would have been very risky legally. Especially if he was gay, it would probably be impossible to fire him without losing an expensive lawsuit afterwards.

<comment><USER17> I don't think legally but more politically and PR wise. There a difference between firing someone for making donations to pro-X groups and firing someone for being X. In this hypothetical scenario, Eich would have to prove he was fired for being gay instead of for making a public donation that support a group and leads to potential blowback against the company. It's bad either way. Mozilla had a no win situation here. They got bad PR from both sides.

<comment><USER16> Forget about whether it has blowback against the company- It's totally legal AFAIK to fire someone for their "off the clock" speech for any or no reason at all.

In reality, though, I think a jury would be very skeptical of a company's claims that someone was fired for promoting the gay agenda (which would be legal) and not for being a gay person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I was originally going to lump this article in with other "men's rights movement" stuff until I saw the author was Jonathan Haidt. I had the honor to take Psyc 101 with Prof. Haidt years ago at the University of Virginia. He was a wonderful teacher who expected the best out of his students. He struck me as a very intelligent man who had put a lot of thought into both what he taught as well as his opinions. When he bring up his own beliefs in class he was very open to letting others voice dissenting opinions. More importantly, he always seemed willing to consider alternative views.

I know this is all anecdotal, but I put a lot of trust in his opinions and pay attention when he says something.

Unrelated, but he gave a great Ted talk in 2008 about the difference between liberals and conservatives: [https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind](https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind)

<comment><USER19> So it doesn't matter what is being said as long as it is coming from the right person?

<comment><USER20> Or more charitably, the grandparent comment author found a way to do the admirable (and for almost all of us, all-too-rare) task of reevaluating with renewed respect something previously dismissed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers has done some interesting research, and given many eye opening talks regarding this matter. Reading this article made my morning. It's time we step back and reevaluate the way we are raising the youth. This war on boys is wrong, and could have disastrous effects on our society in the future.

<comment><USER22> Agreed. It is baffling to me that nobody seems to seriously consider that this war on men/boys is what creates this weird and uncomfortable social dynamic. Masculinity is not something to be feared or ashamed of, teaching that is what creates dysfunctional men.

<comment><USER23> No, social norms that

      - you're not allowed to show emotion (unless it's anger)
      - you must get all of your emotional needs met through first your mother, and then your girlfriend / wife

are what creates dysfunctional men.

<comment><USER24> As a tall, large framed man, I often get very strong negative reactions when I am physically fit. And I mean fit not weightlifting bulk. Keeping short hair and a clean shave while swimming regularly is a very utilitarian choice, but you get even stronger negative reactions. The way out? Growing long hair transformed rather negative skin head connotations with a far more teasing Fabio.

Our culture really looks down on the strong male archetype.

PS: Don't believe me? Try growing a natural aka full beard.

<comment><USER25> As someone with a full beard, a father who wears a full beard, and several friends with full beards, what is the problem with them?

<comment><USER24> For one thing it lowers the bar before people think your indigent. Depending on industry it can often make it harder to find a job. On the whole it's generally viewed as a low status symbol.

Granted this is mostly from the east coast of the US (DC). And having a styled bearded seems to make a large difference.

<comment><USER25> All I can say is that I and my friends in the NYC and Philly region working (mostly) in pharmaceutical and financial industries do not generally experience this. But obviously that would be anecdotal.

<comment><USER26> > financial

Isn't finance the place where being clean shaven is almost necessary if you want to succeed?

<comment><USER27> -> almost necessary

Required. I'm in graduate school right now and you won't get a call back for 2nd rounds if you have a beard. It's some sort of irrational proxy for discipline.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > Alumni should take it into account before writing any more checks.

This is the key takeaway for anyone interested in getting this nonsense to stop.

</comment><comment><USER29> As a student at Dartmouth, I find this article to be extremely accurate and representative of the culture I've encountered amongst the protests here and (through conversations with friends) at other places across the country. As a white male, my friends and I are too intimidated by the Black Lives Matter protesters and their actions to try to initiate any sort of discussion on the matter in fear that we'll only provoke more anger and protest.

<comment><USER30> If people are angry about X and you go up to them and try to tell them how much you like/support X, isn't that what you'd expect? To make people want to engage you in a thoughtful discussion, it's important to demonstrate humility and open-mindedness to their opinions.

<comment><USER27> I recently tried to engage a BLM protester about the issues, hoping to have a thoughtful discussion about some policies and ways forward to improve the situation. 3 paragraphs latter, I was being told that my white privilege should exclude me from even participating in the discussion, let alone informing decisions about policy - ostensibly because I do not have a shared experience of discrimination.

Disclaimer: I'm a white male from the midwest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> While I agree with most of the article, the author tries to politicize it at points, which I think is a mistake. This is not an issue of liberals trying to silence opposition, indeed when we see the most vehement efforts at shaming differing views the language is not ideological but personal: "X was hurtful" "He/she felt threatened".

I'm a true blue leftist not long out of a famously liberal liberal university and I would have raised my hands on the eggshells questions. I vividly recall a student proposing a test on candidates' general positions at polls and being literally shouted down before he could finish speaking. Despite its ugly history in the US it's not of liberals vs conservatives, at least not in the way we use those terms in the US.

We have a problem with limiting discourse in schools but trying to shoehorn it into the usual political framework frankly alienates those of us in the left who are having to choose between apologizing for zealots on our side of the spectrum or aligning with groups that seem to inevitably take on repulsive undertones of intolerance and a whole other host of positions that have nothing to do with our own beyond being marginalized by the same extremely vocal group.

</comment><comment><USER32> One thing that I haven't seen anyone mention is that this sort of walking on eggshells culture tends to build higher walls around the privileged and powerful group. How often do you think these privileged rich white boys go on to become employers and refuse to higher someone from an out group (consciously or unconsciously) due to fear that the slightest misinterpreted off hand remark could bring hell down on them, but if they hire the other privileged white guy they can comfortably be themselves without risk.

I think even if you have the most leftist SJW views and objectives, you have to see this as counter productive.

<comment><USER33> I'm pretty sure some leftist SJW really can't see this as counter productive. It's not just employment, this shit cuts through everything. I can't imagine how this crowd could side with the white supremacists knowingly.

But then there is Slavoj Zizek, who agrees with you and me. [http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2nd6rg](http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2nd6rg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Thank you so much for posting this. It articulated a lot of the angst I was feeling in college that I felt like I couldn't express without sounding insensitive or offensive.

<comment><USER35> Sometimes it's best to be insensitive and offensive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> This drove me out of the humanities completely when I was in college. The topic of discussion in a class freshman year was whether natural selection still or ever applied to humans. I said no, because decisions on how many kids you have tends to vary from culture to culture, and I mentioned specifically Catholicism and the 1 child law in China. And I was called racist.

Never got accused of being racist in Calc.

<comment><USER37> What does the 'one child' law have to do with natural selection, and how does your answer relate to the prior 50 years of life in China.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> HN suffers from this problem, and I have found it increasing over time. Sometimes I am afraid to upvote certain stories or comments as I fear the hidden moderators can see what people are voting on and punish them accordingly. I know that this is irrational but still those feelings creep in. Every time the hate mob takes someone down professionally and the more ridiculous the circumstances the more people self censor. The silent majority is the biggest political and social problem of our time. People forget that far left political movements have been just as bloody and hateful as far right. This stuff is dangerous.

<comment> steve-howard I've never liked appeals to a "silent majority" because it groups everyone who doesn't make their voice heard into a vague group that's assumed to be on the same page. I'm generally silent on these issues, for example, but my stance isn't as simple as "I disagree with those stupid college kids" or "all of you people are so privileged and ignorant."

You definitely got at the thrust of the issue, though. I don't really want to present an opinion that's going to trigger an avalanche of hate that might not even relate to what I'm saying. I don't post the vast majority of the comments I start typing.

<comment><USER38> Sorry I didnt mean to suggest that the silent majority has the same views more that the majority is silent, and I wanted to link that maybe they are silent because of the climate of going after people so aggressively for having the wrong brand (problematic) of views/beliefs.

I prefer a society where people can be challenged on their beliefs, when people refuse to have a rational discussion using logic and real facts they are exposing themselves for what they are, hateful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The concept presented here of "seeking justice by appeal to the majority" reminds me of the Twitter phenomenon in which people learned that the only way to get customer service from Google/Ubisoft/Bank of America/(insert giant faceless company) was to tweet a grievance publicly. It seems to work well, at least in a few high-profile cases. At least, it worked a few times when private requests failed. Perhaps people are learning by example?

The old-fashioned ("culture of honor/dignity"?) style of one-on-one negotiation is often futile when you are dealing with a company.

<comment><USER40> Well yes, they're learning by example. People are getting fired or ostracised by mobs on sites like Twitter based on things like this. It's an unfortunate pattern where instead of countering arguments or having a debate, a lot of people (especially in these SJW groups) tend to try and destroy someone's livelihood instead.

And because a lot of companies seem to care more about their 'reputation' then any sort of principles, you end up in a situation where people are too scared to talk out in case a social media mob destroys their life.

<comment><USER41> It's the classic witch hunt mob.

Girl A: I like apples. Girl B: I don't like what you're saying. Hey everybody, she's a witch!

Mob deals out punishment.

You can clearly see that the mob is being played, being used like a pawn, by Girl B. The mob doesn't actually benefit form this. Girl B benefits from this because she got rid of her competitor.

The same way those students protesting are being used by the person at the top. The students don't actually benefits. Meanwhile, the person calling the mob to action is actually the person that benefits (law suit settlement, patronage, donations, government funding, etc).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> For a while now I've thought that 4-year residential college is a dying model. Here's how I view the value proposition of college and how it is being replaced by tech:

* Validation of raw talent by a third party (admissions office) --> can be done by technology today in ways impossible 10 years ago and hard to imagine 30 years ago

* Socialization around other people in the top decile (or higher) of book-smarts --> can largely be done by online communities (not a full replacement for interpersonal interaction but better than what was available before)

* Access to top-tier employers who didn't have time to look through every candidate out there, so economized their recruiting efforts at places where smart young people are concentrated --> this model made largely obsolete by internet

* Access to lots of obscure books at college library --> made completely obsolete by internet

* Access to great lectures --> made obsolete by internet / MOOCs

* Access to a diversity of opinions, the exposure to which will make you a better and more informed person --> these days only applicable if you come from a very sheltered conservative background....otherwise college just reinforces existing biases

If I had to choose between two candidates with the same proficiency in a testable skill set (JavaScript, GAAP accounting, laying brick, whatever else), at this point I'd probably prefer someone who spent four years working on a fishing boat, or trying to make it as a musician, or on a church mission, or hiking the PCT / CDT / AT, or in the Marines, or something else challenging, over someone who went to an elite undergrad institution. They just seem more and more like indoctrination mills that crank out entitled little whiners.

//grumpy old man rant over

<comment><USER43> _If I had to choose between two candidates with the same proficiency in a testable skill set (JavaScript, GAAP accounting, laying brick, whatever else), at this point I 'd probably prefer someone who spent four years working on a fishing boat, or trying to make it as a musician, or on a church mission, or hiking the PCT / CDT / AT, or in the Marines, or something else challenging, over someone who went to an elite undergrad institution._

I reach the exact opposite conclusion. Give me a student who has spent four years learning how to learn. Someone who has had forced exposure to a whole lot of different disciplines. Who was forced to study things they don't much care about, because the value in doing so is so high.

Spending four years pursuing a passion, or working on a boat.. is.. great I suppose. But a well-rounded college graduate is something the tech crowd really doesn't value enough these days.

<comment><USER42> I actually agree strongly with your point, I just think that the pursuits named above are better at teaching people how to learn than many colleges are these days.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I liked the following comment. The speaker himself is probably biased as to what happened to him:

 _As a student of 'centerville high school' as well, I can assure you this comment is completely true. While multiple questions were phrased as attacks towards Haidt personally, many of them were completely rational. In response to one question (about his annoyance towards people who are pushing women to be in more stem positions) he stated a very vague position on how women, no matter their environmental conditions in childhood, are still predisposed to not be in stem positions (genetically). This was not the only 'sketchy' point he made. The question about his condoning of rape, while completely unnecessary, was founded on his insensitivity towards the subject (which continued into many subjects, including race and gender). His careful picking of data allowed his points to made clearly and succinctly in his mind. Questions that were too long or that had follow ups were completely ignored. In response to one of the first (albeit angry and unnecessary) questions, Haidt's response was to tell the audience that in order to fully look at an argument, one had to look at both sides, something I (as someone who did believe in a large amount of what Haidt was saying) had to scoff at. His entire argument was founded on the idea that everyone being free to say whatever they want is the best thing possible for American schools, while being politically correct in all scenarios is the worst thing possible for American schools. Obviously there are positive and negative aspects to both. This completely contradicts his belief to look at both sides of an argument dispassionately, not to mention being hard, as students who do care about their education, to listen to. Haidt's talk was difficult to listen to. Even though I believe in almost all of his points (despite being part of many, although not all, of the minority groups mentioned) his inability to speak to us effectively (in a way that didn't seem like he condoned rape) made it so that his argument was not relayed to us clearly. His blatant misunderstanding of his audience put him in the position to be attacked. One can say that he did that on purpose, to prove his point about shaking those who do walk on eggshells. But that doesn't work. Telling defensive people their wrong doesn't work. Sorry._

</comment><comment> at-fates-hands The one thing that perplexes me more than anything is nobody ever thought free speech allows us to monitor the people who have radical ideologies and ideas that threaten our country. When you silence opposition simply because it offends somebody or some group, you lose the opportunity to monitor these people and their ideas.

I want to know if there's skinheads who want to start a race war or the black panther party leader who advocates violence against non-whites. Sure it's offensive to me, but I want to KNOW these people are out there and know what they're thinking.

<comment><USER40> This is one of the reason governments and police forces aren't trying to complete wipe terrorists groups and extremists off the internet. Because if their posts are publically viewable, then it's easier to watch what they're up to and stop anything dangerous occurring as a result. If they take them down, then these people simply go 'underground' and becomes it a lot more difficult to check whether they're planning anything.

Of course, there's also a downside (that a certain few people might be inspired or encouraged by extremist content they see online), but it's better for security to let such people give themselves away before anything can happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Thank you for posting this article. I've often felt the "walking on eggshells" phenomenon you describe, but I've never even felt able to call it out without risking being labeled an "enemy" of a cause. Seems you found a great way to do so.

</comment><comment><USER46> South Park's Stunning and Brave did a great take down on this intolerance of intolerance culture that is growing among US youth.

<comment><USER47> Came here to post this as it's hands down the most brilliant indictment of this culture I've seen to date: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXF8MIG_HQI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXF8MIG_HQI)

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Prof. Haidt was also the co-author of this piece in The Atlantic Monthly: [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/greg- luk...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/greg-lukianoffs- story/399359/)

</comment><comment><USER49> as long the definition of the word 'safety' has been expanded to include removing any risk of emotional distress from day-to-day life, we might as well call the current campus climate 'unsafe' for anyone who doesn't hold the prevailing views. i know i certainly didn't feel 'safe' to express the occasional disagreement with the majority opinion while at wesleyan, even though i was 99% in agreement with those prevailing views. i felt paranoid about (either accidentally or deliberately) saying the wrong thing and therefore provoking mob justice. 'walking on eggshells' was an understatement. that paranoia felt more than justified when people who had expressed contrary opinions were the subject of campus-wide mockery, derision, and ostracism.

being reflexively deferential to every conceivable sensitivity causes us to disproportionately look out for the safety of some at the expense of the overall atmosphere of civility, dignity, respect, and yes, 'safety,' of the campus. it really hit home when recently Wesleyan's campus newspaper lost a good portion of its funding because it dared to publish an op-ed criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement on effectiveness grounds [1]. After all, students no longer felt "safe" knowingly attending the same school as someone who disagrees with them (rightly or wrongly). i am completely embarrassed.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-speech-is- flunk...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-speech-is-flunking-out- on-college- campuses/2015/10/22/124e7cd2-78f5-11e5-b9c1-f03c48c96ac2_story.html)

</comment><comment><USER50> An excellent article. I hope people actually read it instead of dismissing it because someone influential on twitter doesn't like the fact that it doesn't fit a specific narrative. I'm glad academia is starting to wake up on that very specific issue. Good luck to its author, he is going to need it, because some people will be out eager to destroy his career.

</comment><comment><USER51> I have extremely mixed feelings about all of this.

On the one hand, I think the whole point of university is debate, discourse, critical thought. The apparent trend away from liberalism is very distressing.

On the other, I sympathize with the notion that liberalism can often be a way for the privileged to entrench their privilege, and that unprivileged voices don't benefit from it equally. If you're black and you believe that black americans are owed reparations, you probably can't say that freely without expecting some negative repercussions in your future life: you'll be judged and categorized, marked as "uppity". Liberalism doesn't exist in a vacuum: we have to take into account other societal truths when we're evaluating its effects.

I don't have a great handle on how to reconcile all of this.

</comment><comment><USER52> Meta: In the last few weeks I've noticed that articles about the recent college protests trending up on HN, only to be flagged and vanish.

I'm struggling to understand why these articles should be flagged and removed, rather than downvoted or debated in the comments. Thoughts?

</comment><comment><USER53> I guess you could argue the up/down voting on this forum is a question of group think or bulling type of behavior.

<comment><USER41> It's a type of group think. BUT, it is NOT a type of bullying. Bullying requires that people shame/harass/doxx the op. Which they do not.

Compare to the universities, where students bullies other administrators to fire other administrators for defending freedom of speech.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> This article Haidt links on the sociology of the new culture of victimhood is very insightful: [http://righteousmind.com/where-microaggressions-really- come-...](http://righteousmind.com/where-microaggressions-really-come-from/)

</comment><comment><USER55> Does this stuff happen outside of America? It's all very crazy.

</comment><comment><USER56> The problem is that this also goes on in adulthood and even in board meetings. Even if you have the majority on your side they will sit quietly and watch you take a beating!

Then think about what happens if you try to have a discussion about something that is not "politically correct".

The problem with not allowing discussion about extreme topics is that the extremists will end up only discussing among themselves. And that's where it can become dangerous.

</comment><comment><USER57> There's nothing wrong with what is being said here. Except that there are just as many "climate" issues that woman and people of color have to face, if not more. This person is cherry-picking discussions about race and gender and saying "it's horrible that climate issues are making it difficult for these white/male students from participating" but the same level of outcry doesn't exist even though in almost every other field you can say the same kind of thing: "it's horrible that climate issues in computer science are making it difficult for these students of color" and the same people are silent.

And I realize I am doing a form of derailing right now, because the matter at hand is white boys being heard. But we're actually talking about white boys being heard during advanced discussions of race and gender. And honestly I feel a little bit the same about it that I feel about girls being heard during advanced discussions of parallel CPU architectures. I wish there were more women who were in those discussions, but I don't think the solution is "just let them participate even if what they say is totally ignorant".

Frankly, most white boys are not skilled enough to participate in discussions about race and gender. It's not that there's anything inherently wrong with them, the pipeline is just letting us down completely. Most of us get almost no education in race and gender, while girls and people of color get it for free just because of their gender or race.

The solution in my mind is the same as the solution to getting more women and other disenfranchised groups into computer science. Everyone just needs to take a little bit of responsibility for the part of the pipeline that's one step upstream from them. You can't just have boys who have never thought about what colonialism actually feels like diving right into university-level gender politics classes. But as a university professor I think you can support summer programs for teenage boys to help them do really basic level gender analysis stuff so that when they do get to college, they can actually participate meaningfully with the girls, and not be seen as second-class citizens just because they have less direct experience.

We shouldn't think of these boys as "bad gender theorists" we need to broaden our understanding of what gender theory is, and make sure we are creating opportunities for disenfranchised novices to get involved.

But this naive affirmative action approach OP is advocating, of "just make sure the boys participate equally" is not taking the problem seriously. Proper affirmative action requires you to get in and take responsibility for your recruitment process and the social issues surrounding it.

<comment><USER41> >You can't just have boys who have never thought about what colonialism actually feels like

And now, you're just assuming that white boys have no empathy. Wow.

>Proper affirmative action requires you to get in and take responsibility for your recruitment process and the social issues surrounding it...

If everybody just stop fighting, there would be world peace. BUT, the reality is, not everybody will stop fighting. And there is nothing we can do to change that. We can make fighting illegal. BUT, nothing can change the reality. The reality is, people will still fight.

>Proper affirmative action requires you to get in and take responsibility for your recruitment process and the social issues surrounding it...

I know of a way to solve the economic problem we're facing. If we just make all CEOs of all companies competent...

>Proper affirmative action requires you to get in and take responsibility for your recruitment process and the social issues surrounding it

You may be responsibility in your recruitment process, but that doesn't mean others will be.

>But if everybody just be more responsible in their recruitment process...

Again, if the world just stop fighting wars, there would be no wars.

But really, I don't see how that is an implementable solution. How are you going to implement something like that? How are you going to implement "world- stop-fighting-wars"? How are you going to implement "everyone-is-more- responsible-when-recruiting"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> My stock retort always is "Well, I find your narrow-mindedness offensive". Questions, logical and calmly asked, also swiftly dismantle those flapping on about misplaced social concerns.

Almost feel sorry for them, like these views are thinly-veiled insecurities about some aspect of themselves or trauma experienced.

</comment><comment><USER59> The Intolerance of the those crusading against Intolerance is funny until it is not.

<comment><USER60> It's also a lie. Try engaging the "I'm only intolerant of intolerance" crowd on, say, climate change, abortion, or the death penalty. It takes tortuous logical contortions to frame any of these issues in terms of "intolerance," and yet you'll likely be met with vitriol nonetheless.

<comment><USER61> It's even more dishonest to take all of the opinions held by individuals of some ill-defined cohort, and pretend that any inconsistencies between different individuals means that all members of the group are irrational and should be ignored.

<comment><USER60> _ill-defined cohort_

The group I mentioned is precisely defined, and 100% opt-in—it's the set of all people who say "I'm only intolerant of intolerance."

 _all members of the group are irrational and should be ignored_

Are you accusing me of thinking that? Because I didn't say that, and I don't think that. Reread my comment: saying "you'll _likely_ be met with vitriol" implies that the converse—that you _won 't_ be met with vitriol—is also possible.

<comment><USER61> Pedantry is a poor defense.

<comment><USER60> "Group X tends to do Y."

"How dishonest. You're saying all members of Group X do Y and should therefore be ignored."

"I said none of those things. I said Group X _tends_ to do Y, which implies that some members of the group _don 't_ do Y."

"Pedantry is a poor defense."

Calling me dishonest or pedantic is pure projection. If you have trouble seeing it, here's a mirror: [http://www.amazon.com/SJWs-Always-Lie-Taking- Thought-ebook/d...](http://www.amazon.com/SJWs-Always-Lie-Taking-Thought- ebook/dp/B014GMBUR4)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Great post. We have the same thing in Brazil. But I am unsure with this problem really starts in high school. Actually, I think this problem starts on Facebook...

</comment><comment><USER63> I don't think college students being involved in radical politics and protests against their school is a new trend.

<comment><USER64> I didn't downvote you, but I think other people are because the article's central thesis is that this social phenomenon is at its core neither radical politics nor anti-school protests. Rather, the article claims that it's merely a new coat of paint on the same old gang bullying/identity politics/being mean to outsiders to increase one's own social status.

<comment><USER65> That's how those movements were portrayed back in the day, too.

<comment><USER63> Exactly, this isn't the first time a progressive social cause has been called "political correctness gone mad."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> This directly relates to us in tech. Specifically, there is a huge push to reach out to women and girls in CS. I am not opposed to females in CS at all. I will encourage males and females alike to pursue it, because I see CS as the great equalizer; the only thing that matters is what you produce.

What I _can 't_ stand are these "Women in technology" conferences and workshops to "close the (gender) gap". Why? Because if you focus on one group, then you are actively _not_ focusing on another. Given the dichotomy defined by their stated purpose, they are actively dismissive of men (boys). That is wrong.

I don't care about the men/women ratio. People will choose whatever path they enjoy and want to work at. I do care very strongly, though, about treating people equally.

If I say this publically, then I, too, will be ostracized. _That_ is why this article is so very important!

<comment><USER67> I might agree that "CS is the great equalizer" if everyone is given an equal opportunity to pursue it. But I don't think they are. Boys are given the focus by default: just watch any Hollywood movie with a "hacker" \-- are they a man or a woman? I believe girls are taught from a young age that CS isn't for them.

How many potentially brilliant female computer scientists are we missing out on as a society because our media and culture barrages them with images of male programmers? It's in my selfish interest as a white male to promote CS among underrepresented groups -- because one of them might come up with the next innovation that changes my life. But they don't get the chance, because they're told they can't be programmers.

That's why I think outreach focused on young minorities & girls is important.

<comment><USER66> What movies/tv shows are you watching? Try Supernatural. Try the old movies from the 90's like Hackers and The Net. Even the Matrix. All of them featured women hackers as well as men.

I was not given "the focus" by default. My Jr. High and High School did not have a CS program at all. I taught myself how to program (Pascal and Assembly) by READING BOOKS, because we lived in a rural area and dial-up internet is slow!

Is it so wrong to believe that if I can do it, so can others, regardless of their gender? Maybe I have a higher confidence in women than they do!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> It is strange to me that the SJW-callers seem to be the most vocal and active group trying to bend speech and criticism to their own idea of "right".

</comment><comment><USER69> Poorly written article. Title undefined until last paragraph.

</comment><comment><USER70> I find the underlying premise of this article and the claim that there is a "war on boys" absurd. It's a old argument from the same old set of people who have the same old intolerant (and dying) paradigm.

Not sure why it is on HN at all as the content has nothing to do with tech...

<comment><USER71> I'm pretty disappointed in the article and the comments, and how like Reddit this website is turning out to be. I'm not going to make any judgements (though I really really am), but this same article has been posted to 10 subreddits, among them such gems as: SJWsAtWork, ThisIsNotASafeSpace, sjsucks, and sjwhate.

<comment><USER72> Not affiliated (except that I follow him on Twitter), but the author, Jonathan Haidt, is one of America's pre-eminent social psychologists. He is (or at least was) a liberal who has engaged in some very serious social psychology that gives massive insight into how people tick, especially where those ticks are related to or concerning political party affiliations.

If the idea is to dismiss him as an anti-SJW, or anti-free speech, then I would posit that you're simply inclined to dismiss no matter what. If the complaint is that his work is spreading to, or being adopted by the anti-SJW crowd, that's hardly his fault.

He may not be right, or he may not have done appropriate research, or he may be based (his own studies would suggest that it's inevitable that he is), but any dismissal predicated in part on that he's trolling is almost certainly knee-jerk.

<comment><USER71> I don't doubt at all Haidt is qualified.

My complaint was more to your second point, that "If the complaint is that his work is spreading to, or being adopted by the anti-SJW crowd, that's hardly his fault." I do see a problem with how one-sided the comments on the page (Heterodox Academy) are, and I do think that he should have stepped in. Then, when I came to Hacker News, I saw similar comments, and that was disheartening.

My distaste really came from comments like these, on the main page: "My white male sons are now 30 and 28. I'm so happy they escaped public high school relatively unscathed, but I could see the beginnings of the nonsense, led by a faculty of activist females and male eunuchs. Public schooling in this country may have begun with noble intent; kids are now truly being inculcated rather than educated." and "You state this like it is an article of faith that women would be totally rad in STEM if only men would stop holding them back. What makes this "sketchy"? There is an abundance of evidence that men and women are different and think differently. There is almost no evidence that women will change that position based on upbringing." and then on hnews itself: "#KillAll(White)Men is literally calling for ethnic / gender purging." (though it was downvoted).

It would be great to have a conversation with Dr. Haidt, but I was turned off by how both Heterodox and Hacker News turned into "amen" forums. There were two students who posted on Heterodox, and they had some interesting points, some of which disagreed with Dr. Haidt.

<comment><USER73> The commentators are self selecting - if they strongly agree, they comment, which they have. You're still trying to dismiss the article based on people having opinions different than yours, rather than critiquing the article itself.

<comment><USER71> Would you agree with me in saying that the comments are at least disappointing?

In terms of the article itself, I agreed with this part, "High schools and colleges that lack viewpoint diversity should make it their top priority" which seems like a pretty progressive viewpoint. Let's make sure everybody's voice is heard, and let's make sure that voices that are usually silenced outside the classroom have equal footing inside. But a sentence later, bam - "Schools that value freedom of thought should therefore actively seek out non- leftist faculty."

I'm not sure how exactly that flows, and that's what led me to be disappointed. Moreover, the idea that students and faculty are living in "fear" and we have to accommodate their fears is also just a tad hypocritical.

I also have a problem with victimhood culture being a thing, but that's a whole different argument.

<comment><USER72> > "Schools that value freedom of thought should therefore actively seek out > non-leftist faculty."

Any argument that can be made in favor of cultural diversity should necessarily extend to left-right diversity as well.

FWIW, as I stated earlier, Haidt is leftist. Perhaps less so now than 7-8 years ago, but he is indeed a leftist, but one who appreciates that non- leftists are not evil, but who have different gradients of right/wrong, and different associations with which to be entrenched.

If you want children to have freedom of thought, then you should try to accurately present a range of ideas to students wherever possible. Students learn that 2+2=4, at least in some small part, because teachers say that it does. They later learn how and why 2+2=4, which mitigates the need for teacher acceptance as canon, but regardless, they learn that teachers ideas are to be given weight at the least, and that their expressions, even not necessarily strictly academic ones, are right.

Would you find fault with your children's education if every teacher were a Rush Limbaugh clone, or would you prefer them be exposed to a variety of thoughts and given the tools and knowledge to inform themselves and form their own viewpoints? If the answer is the latter, then you should reject the notion of your children being subscribed to any narrow ideological view, and adding non-leftist ideologies can only broaden it.

Edit: And yes, I would agree that if the comments are as you say they are, that is disappointing. I caught this article shortly after it was posted, and there weren't any other comments at the time, so I thankfully did not have those comments color my opinion of the article itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> Just for everyone's awareness, there is a broad astroturf and professional political push that has been happening for over a year by FIRE, a right leaning think tank. This is a concerted effort to bring controversy around campus free speech into the news.

My perception is that this is an effort to weaken student's ability to speak freely, but is coded as a "free speech" issue. Similar to how many churches coded marriage equality as trampling on their freedom of religion.

Just to remind everyone how free speech works: You are free to say whatever you want. I am free to choose to speak out against you or even pull my support from you if I disagree with what you say. My freedom extends to let me voice my opposition to you just as loudly as you voice your opinions. That is not censorship.

<comment><USER75> I don't think Jonathan Haidt is an astroturfer.</comment></comment>


My Struggle with the Last Great Taboo: Admitting My Salary - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2015/05/im-terrified-tell-people-much-make <comment><USER2> I find it interesting to read about this "taboo" because, as a scientist at a public university, the issue is...nonexistent! If you are a scientist writing grant applications with other people (the norm), then you need to know their exact salaries in order to fill out the application. This includes the salaries of people above and below you in the food chain. There is no mystery or taboo in it whatsoever. Working at a public university, the mystery factor is even lower, if possible, because all the higher salaries are published online.

I remember dimly when I thought this complete transparency was strange and it made me uncomfortable. Now I don't usually give it a second thought.

<comment><USER3> Here in Sweden, taxable income for everyone is bublicly available. I always find it amusing/sad to read about this taboo in the US.

<comment><USER4> Isn't it sort of taboo here too, though? I've seen people being told to fuck off for asking that question, or at least politely declined. Even my close family have always been reluctant to divulge their exact income to me, with a few exceptions. It's not a thing that I would ask someone without feeling pretty certain they wouldn't mind.

<comment><USER5> In general? Yes, it's still socially frowned upon (ie. Taboo) and socially awkward to talk about your salary or someone you knows salary in Sweden.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One of the reasons I like sites like glassdoor is that it separates the judgment from the data. I don't need to know that Alice makes 22% less than Bob, and Bob makes 18% less than Claire, and therefore make personal judgments about each of my coworkers (like Alice is a pushover; Bob is mediocre; Claire is bossy.) I just need to know what the distribution is, in my company or in my industry, in order to negotiate for myself.

<comment><USER7> Wouldn't it be better if A, B, C, and you joined together and hired some professional lawyers and negotiators to work on your behalf (ie organized labor, union)?

<comment><USER8> From the employer side, if one or the other is a more valuable employee, I need to be able to compensate them more so that I can ensure they stay with our team and don't go to a competitor.

From the employee side, if I go out and learn new skills and abilities, I want to be able to negotiate compensation that reflects the value I bring.

Particularly in creative fields like tech / IT, unionization fails both of those needs, and promotes stagnation over innovation.

So, no.

<comment><USER9> Having professionals negotiate for the team doesn't necessarily mean the pay will be equal among the team.

Actors, who also work in a creative field and also have vast differences in talent, use many kinds of intermediaries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> >"Without that knowledge, I would never have known I was being suckered."

Suckered by yourself you mean, and suckered by the people that never taught you the principles of a free market where the assumption is that when two parties agree, the situation is satisfactory for both. If not, there is no agreement, no deal. The other party was not suckering you, you were happy with the deal, you took it. Why do you put something as important as your salary entirely into someone else's responsibility and then complain later?

Whoever raised or educated you forgot to mention some critical things to you. Like objects, people's skill have no intrinsic value. It is you and the other party that set the value to an agreeable level. Wow, you even got pissed at others that did receive the lesson in time. Well, just be happy someone taught you in the end.

What helps me in negotiations is thinking not about coworkers but about how I could be working less (later in life perhaps), how my wife could be working less, how we could travel more... If only I can convince them I'm worth more. I know myself well enough to see that I need the reason to be "not just for me". I wish it was enough to just do it for me though.

I do think the situation is a bit different in the Netherlands where very often there is a collective work agreement (with all wages defined) which puts people in levels. The requirements for the levels are clearly defined. At the healthcare company I work we have "key areas of responsibility tables" where you can see what to do exactly to go to the next scale. I check them before my yearly progress meeting and indicate to my boss if I should be at a higher level. Your salary within the scale is determined by the progress you make. It makes the gaps with coworkers less, still there is a lot of room for negotiation.

Also we have [http://www.loonwijzer.nl/home](http://www.loonwijzer.nl/home) where everyone can enter their salary and you can look up how you are doing. That said, I find it difficult to compare directly to others.

<comment><USER11> I think what she's referring to is a situation of information asymmetry, which puts the employee in a position of less power in the negotiation.

Of course it's up to you to negotiate for yourself. That's pretty obvious. But if the other party holds more power, you're negotiating at a disadvantage. And the way I understood the article, that is what she meant by being "suckered". Being put at a disadvantage when negotiating for something important to her.

<comment><USER12> What information assymmetry. Surely you can find out from your network what a typical salary for the position is. With sites like glassdoor you also can get a good indication of what you typically can expect. And by being savvy in the interview, you can find out of what value the position might be to the company and you can negotiate on those grounds.

Sometimes the employer is in a better position, sometimes the employee. Sometimes the employer needs to fill a position urgently, has got specialised requirements or the employee is gainfully employed somewhere else and in a much better bargaining position.

We really should stop playing the victim.

<comment><USER13> If you have a network. If people in your network talk to you. If people post to glassdoor about the company.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that this is true for everyone. Also remember that even if you have a network, if it is influenced by your gender (women with women friends) , or race( black people with black friends) you might not have an accurate picture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've come to realize lately that I have absolutely no idea what I should be making. I know what I make and I know what I have made in the past, but I have no idea whether it's above or below average.

The only way I can think of to determine my value is to go interview in a bunch of places and see what they offer. However, I have no interest in leaving my job right now, and I feel like it's dishonest to go through the process knowing that I wouldn't take anything but a ridiculously great offer.

How do other folks deal with this? (Edit: Glassdoor has no decent information for my position, at any of the companies I've looked at.)

<comment><USER15> My problem is that glassdoor has information for my specific position, in my city, in my company but it's double what I currently make. I don't _think_ I'm that underpaid but the taboo of employees not discussing salary leaves me without any real idea of where I really should be. I know for a fact I make more money in one quarter for the company than I earn in an entire year. I still asked for at least 20% more and am awaiting a response. Also applying for other positions.

The only big increases I've ever gotten were by switching companies or bringing a competing offer to my boss. People say the latter is career suicide but they are wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Read all that and I still have no clue what the author is making now.

<comment><USER17> She chickened out. But it's hard.

<comment><USER18> Its probably a Wired policy to not disclose your salary.

<comment><USER19> Which is a situation where getting fired for breaking policy is going to be more profitable than keeping your job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> In my previous job at the Finnish software consulting company Futurice ([http://futurice.com](http://futurice.com)), there was a long discussion about this that ended with a volunteer-based publication of peoples salaries - around half of the 200 people opted in. The result was a bit anti-climatic: peoples wages were consistent and fair, no big drama.

After switching jobs to another software consulting company Reaktor ([http://reaktor.com](http://reaktor.com)), I brought up this topic and the discussion was very similar. I decided to try a different route: I created a wiki-page called "Voluntary salary information" and added my name and salary to the top of the page. I then wrote a post to our discourse board explaining why I thought this was important. As of now there are 68 names on that list ( with only 1 obvious troll ) out of about 300 employees. Our head of HR replied to my discourse post with a detailed explanation of how peoples salaries are decided. Overall a great day for transparency.

</comment><comment><USER21> I have had three managers till now. I have asked all three what was their salary. Only one told me his salary, rest two didn't.

I keep asking salaries when I become friends with my coworkers, mostly because its a taboo and hence makes it fun. It makes them laugh when I suddenly in the middle of a conversation ask their salary becuase nobody has in the 10-15 years of their careers. I am a fresher, though.

<comment><USER18> That is interesting. Did you disclose your salary to your coworkers, and if you did, did that effect your relationship with your coworkers?

<comment><USER21> All three of my managers know my salary (of course).

Apart from that, people with whom I am close with know my salary and I know theirs. Mine is the lowest even though one of my friend is IC1 and I am IC2, others are senior to me.

Some of them tell me to talk to the manager for my salary. My priority is learning, so it doesn't bother me much. But I did talk to the manager (and her manager's manager too), because if you don't, they take you for granted.

By knowing I had the lowest salary gives me lot of opportunities to crack jokes :-)

<comment><USER18> From an office scenario, having a coworker knowing your salary is very different to having a close friend knowing your salary. This is especially true if the average salary of your peers makes it difficult to have a comfortable lifestyle. Luckily for the most of the HN crowd, this is not the case.

Salary is something I have an open discussion with my manager about, actually my manager encourage this type of discussion with him. This is a healthy practice.

<comment><USER21> Oh maybe I wasn't clear, I was referring to people I am close with at work and in the same team know my salary.

My salary is comfortably above market's average hence doesn't bother me much that I have the lowest in my team.

Agreed, totally healthy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Transparency can only lead to a freer market, which is something many capitalists truly fear.

</comment><comment><USER23> If salaries were transparent wouldn't that create an incredible amount of animosity between co-workers? When HR has to negotiate and pay someone more to join the company everyone else is going to be extremely jealous. You think people are going to understand? They are not going to. People are not rational. It's more common sense than fear. Disclosing salaries is going to create way more social problems than it solves. Companies aren't forcing anyone to keep their salary secret. People themselves don't want their salaries disclosed, and for good reason. Kind of hard to work together when everyone is reduced to a number.

<comment><USER24> You can already see how 100% salary transparency works in Finland or Sweden.

Anyone can look up a co-worker's salary from data made available by the tax office. (Of course the information is about a year out of date because it's based on tax returns.)

Are employees "reduced to numbers" in Sweden and Finland? Certainly not. On the contrary, these societies are considered some of the most open and equal in the world. Maybe salary transparency has something to do with it too.

<comment><USER25> Actually, I believe employees _are_ reduced to numbers in Sweden and Finland. You don't see star employees or developers making what they make in the US. Everyone is in something of an equilibrium—decent pay, but not much incentive to strive for more.

<comment><USER26>
       decent pay, but not much incentive to strive for more

Isn't that a good thing? I mean striving for more based on _intrinsic motivation_ than financial. My observation in over the past 12 years working in the software industry is that bad motivation (both carrot and stick) tend to drive out the good (desire to build something or solve a problem).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I feel this is a faulty exercise. Would you disclose your salary if you _knew_ you made more than your peers? I guess the end effect would be, only those who _feel_ they are making less would disclose.

<comment><USER28> Because you would like to see your peers get paid equitably? They can't use your salary as leverage in their own negotiations unless they know what it is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Spoiler: at the end he still hasn't admitted what he makes at Wired. Link bait confirmed.

</comment><comment><USER30> >"Did the knowledge hurt my relationships with my coworkers? Yes. Of course it did. I felt cheated. I felt undervalued. I frankly felt I was the victim of a double standard."

<comment><USER31> She failed to negotiate when she was hired. Is that really a double standard?

<comment><USER32> She was saying that she was offered 35,000 less than the previous person for the same role. If she was truly valued, why was she not offered just as much if not more?

<comment><USER30> There is quite a bit lacking from your logic.

For example, maybe the previous boss had been on the job 10 years. Maybe his starting salary was also $35,000 less than when he ended, in which case they would be valued equally!!

Maybe she was NOT AS GOOD. I know many people who think they are equally as good as their boss and are no where close.

Maybe those with the skill to sell themselves should make more? Why is that so offensive?

Maybe the whole newspaper industry has taken a major hit and the company does not have the available operational budget that they were once able to spend.

It's disappointing that all of these legitimate ideas are passed over and we proceed to assume it was gender related. Really?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> In California, the salary of its state employees are publicly available here: [http://transparentcalifornia.com/](http://transparentcalifornia.com/)

<comment><USER34> > In California, the salary of its state employees are publicly available > here: [http://transparentcalifornia.com/](http://transparentcalifornia.com/)

That's not _just_ state employees (its public employees from different public entities within the state), and its also fairly poorly aggregated from disparate sources, such that if you add all the pay and benefit columns together, they often don't match the pay + benefits (and some people who I personally know have non-zero regular pay show with zero in all pay columns, an actual number in the benefit column, and a pay + benefit that is both higher than the benefit amount (remember, all the pay columns are zero) and lower than the person's _actual_ pay before benefits.

There's another similar source [0], which has slightly different coverage (but both cover state employees), which has substantially different numbers for the same years for people covered by both.

Presumably, for state employees, both of those _third-party aggregators_ have done public records requests for the same public information from the State, but they've both processed it using different (and opaque) methodologies, so that no one actually using it knows what they actually mean (the latter source, by using only one number for each person, doesn't make it _as_ clear that they are doing something funky with the data; the former tries to do more, which makes it even more clear that they are doing something weird, because it makes inconsistencies visible.)

They do a good job of creating the _illusion_ of readily-accessible accurate data if you are only aware of one of them and don't have any independent knowledge to verify them against.

[0] [http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/state- pay/arti...](http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/state- pay/article2642161.html#req=employee%2Ftop%2Fyear%3D2014)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> What about people with very large paychecks?

I don't want to make my friends uncomfortable when they realize I make literally an extra zero at the end of what they make.

Should I keep my mouth shut or disclose... for their sake?

<comment><USER19> Maybe your heart is telling you that you shouldn't be _spending_ an extra 0 on yourself than your peers. If you acknowledge your incredible luck, and that there is diminishing marginal return in lavishly rewarding yourself for our efforts, and you invest the excess in meaningful projects that improve the lot of the world....

<comment><USER35> Your comment doesn't make much sense. I put most of my money into a savings account as I'm saving up for a house. I don't live a very frivolous lifestyle, if that's what you mean.

However, I emigrated from Iceland to the UK, and some of the people I left behind do not have the luxury of doing the same, as they have families or relationships back home.

How would it be fair of me to disclose my salary, just to show them what they can't have? Most people know I make good money, but maybe not exactly how much, and I try not to boast as I feel that is rude.

Constantly going around telling people about my salary would probably not be well received, even if it was "in the interest of transparency of fairness"...

Edit: I do not acknowledge it as luck, I worked my ass off to get where I am today!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I don't get why this is a taboo. I tell my salary to everyone who cares to listen, to the point where an employer threatened to fire me if I told my coworkers about my raise.

</comment><comment><USER24> In Finland wages are public information. The tax office makes the data available yearly, so you can easily look up how much your neighbor made last year.</comment>


Net Neutrality II (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii <comment><USER2> Old study and bad title.

Article published May 6th, 2014.

The majority actually don't agree with the question of: "Considering both distributional effects and changes in efficiency, it is a good idea to let companies that send video or other content to consumers pay more to Internet service providers for the right to send that traffic using faster or higher quality service."

The majority are found in the combined groups of Uncertain, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree.

Edit: Reading over the economists' comments it is obvious that many who support the question(are against net neutrality) have no idea how the internet works or the monopoly/duopoly position of most ISPs.

<comment><USER3> There is no strongly disagree, Do note.

Also I don't think there has been any significant change in the underlying economics of it all, so the positions are still relevant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The question is explicitly about paying more for "faster or higher quality service". Yet at least two of these economists (who voted "agree") seem to misunderstand the issue: Altonji writes "High bandwidth traffic imposes externalities on other users", which is true, but it's an argument in favor of charging per _amount_ of data, not based on _speed_ promised. Same for Thaler's "Seems like those who cause congestion should pay more" (to be fair, he put confidence 1). So... not impressed by these arguments.

Also, Duffie: "Works for soap, wine, and haircuts; why not Internet?". If that's the level of argument needed to become Distinguished Professor at Stanford, I'm clearly in the wrong field.

</comment><comment><USER5> The original submission title ("Majority of economists against net neutrality") is at best a distortion of the cited survey's results. Even without considering the confidence-weighted outcome, 44% of those polled "agree" or "strongly agree" that allowing content companies to pay more to ISPs for prioritized traffic is a good idea, while 56% are either "uncertain," "disagree," or have no opinion. (The confidence-weighted outcome is only 1% different.)

Also, this survey appears to have been done in 2014.

</comment><comment><USER3> From what I can see - it's because they push market competition away as a separate issue, and also reduce the matter to a question of only American telecom.

Also - Normal people also don't assume That firms are rational in any way other than bottom line maximization, and accept that there is regulatory capture.

I don't know if this has been addressed in their supporting papers though.

Within their narrow definition they are not wrong. Recognizing it and engaging it makes for better arguments, and if necessary a change in positon.

</comment><comment><USER6> Majority of economists also prefer a fully private healthcare market over single-payer government-paid healthcare. How is that working out for the U.S. right now?

The two situations are kind of similar because in both cases the economists prefer "market efficiency" (so they say) over the poor (in this case startup companies) being able to afford the services that the rich (in this case big companies) can afford.

All that matters to them is "efficiency" in the sense that the rich can get to pay say $1,000,000 per year and get a super-efficient service back for their money, while the poor could only afford to pay $1,000 a year but also get "great value for their money" (just nowhere near what those people who pay $1,000,000 get).

In their minds this is great, because "efficiency" is the same. The only difference is that the rich would be able to get the best cures for say cancer, while the poor will die, because $1,000 can't buy them the cures.

<comment><USER7> > Majority of economists also prefer a fully private healthcare market over > single-payer government-paid healthcare. How is that working out for the > U.S. right now?

It's tough to say; there hasn't been anything close to a fully private healthcare system for decades, at least since employer-provided healthcare became a tax-free benefit. For some rather large populations such as the poor (Medicaid), the elderly (Medicare), and veterans (VA) systems exist that are comparable to what we call single-payer in other countries.

Without a reference I don't believe you that most economists prefer a _fully_ private healthcare system, but few think the current system is very well- designed or functioning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> While I'm not sure how meaningful this website is.. my guess is that a lot of people outside of the tech scene do not understand just how massive the change of net neutrality policies will be for everyone.

To think that more than a handful companies will make $$$ from abolishing NN is delusional. The monopolies will just cut you out from the market and you're on the other side of the fence - with no money but a lot of angry pro-NN folks around you.

<comment><USER9> There is nothing 'massive' about a rule that was implemented in 2015 and caused little change at the time it was implemented. In the previous 15 years without neutrality rules, there were a few instances of ISPs acting badly, but those were fairly quickly resolved. Source: [https://stratechery.com/2017/pro- neutrality-anti-title-ii/](https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti- title-ii/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Bunch of muppets with advanced expertise in what amounts to convex optimisation theory. What exactly qualifies them to weigh in on how the internet should be run?

<comment><USER11> This is a very alienating position. If I were ever to find myself part of a group, talked about as you did, it would be very tempting to just write off the entire "other group" and their opinion, based purely on that statement.

If you have a good argument to make, why resort to an ad hominem?

For better or for worse, this is a democracy and their point of view matters. Let's try winning them over to ours.

<comment><USER10> On one hand, I agree with what you're saying. On the other, I don't think I'm going to apologise for venting my frustrations. Take a look at the range of topics this 'panel of experts' are polled on [1]:

Health insurance

Standardised testing

Sports stadiums

Robots and artificial intelligence

California's Drought

These people are _not_ experts on these topics. They're basically mathematicians. Most of them likely made their name proving facts about their mathematical models. Remember that these are models that have a lousy track record describing the real world. And yet it sounds incredibly persuasive to run a headline stating "Economistis united on proposition X".

Here's a suggestion. Let's have a panel of experts, but we'll include _one_ economist. We'll also include a social scientist, an engineer, a banker, a lawyer, a government policy wonk, and a social worker. The media can poll them, and might actually get a plurality of views.

[1] [http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts- panel](http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Interesting, vertical price squeeze is mentioned a few times.

Comcast or others becoming a content provider. If one of them buys Netflix, other content providers will have difficulty to compete if they have to pay a lot for the high-speed lane.

Should an efficient market have regulations against vertical integration?

</comment><comment><USER13> Bad question.

The question asked was around 'Quality of Service' \- this is not 'Net Neutrality'.

Providers probably should be allowed to sell differing levels of quality of service, but they should not be able to discriminate between content or customers.

</comment><comment><USER14> Instead of demanding net neutrality, why don't Americans want rule changes that would enable competition among ISPs? Wouldn't that solve many more problems - like low speeds and high prices as well?

<comment><USER15> Exactly. Why do they all want more regulation to solve the problem that over regulation caused in the first place? Seems like a cyclical solution to me

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> A good economics analysis of NN [http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=10750](http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=10750)

<comment><USER3> The good author would perhaps be more open to discussing this point

> Meaning that it is unlikely that market power problems are so acute in this > market as to justify regulations unheard of in other markets where price > discrimination is widely practiced.

If the question were flipped.

Perhaps it not that NN is a unique regulation, and perhaps it is that many other industries also require net neutrality style provisions.

(I doubt there are many truly comparable industries. And all economic defenses underplay the last mile issue or say that WiFi/mobile is good enough.)

Can someone correct me - has there been underinvestment in American telecom infrastructure?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Economists think that you should let markets set prices. shocking.

What is strange is all these free market people in tech who only like free markets that don't apply to them.

<comment><USER13> No, absolutely not.

In the ultimate 'free market' \- your healthcare would be priced based on your earnings, and it would be ~90% of your after tax take home pay. Why? Because you'll pay.

There's good reason we generally don't allow price discrimination, or things like collusion, it's not rocket science.

If the Telcos could price discriminate willy nilly over the information that goes through their pipes - then 100% of the profits of the company you work for will disappear into their bank accounts.

Imagine if some private entity owned all of the roads - and the toll was based on your income?

You can't talk about 'free markets' in such a cavalier manner.

FYI - there is one issue with 'Quality of Service' \- which completely confuses the question above. Telcos must be able to discriminate based on this - i.e. lower latency, higher bandwidth = more cost. But they should be banned from looking at the contents of the traffic, or billing based on source/destination.

<comment><USER14> > it would be ~90% of your after tax take home pay. Why? Because you'll pay.

What's to stop a competitor offering it for 89%? And so on until the market finds its fair price.

<comment><USER13> Because there is an oligarchy in broadband and in many other industries and massive barriers to entry as well.

In broadband, it would be completely stupid for carriers to compete on price because ultimately - they are competing with themselves. You reduce prices one day - the next you have to go lower - and so on.

It's better if they keep prices high and compete on other things.

It's easy to have implicit collusion if they are only 2 or 3 players.

Often, due to access rights there might not really be any competition in specific areas.

I worked at a small telecom switch company. We made a lot of gear that didn't make any sense just to get around regulations.

Example: we made a very expensive voice and dsl and t1 switch on a board. It was crazy expensive, didn't make sense. But the carrier wanted it, because if they had individual DSL cards (or something like that) - they'd have to allow CLEC (local exchange carriers) to compete. So they paid 2x for their networking gear to avoid competition.

The big money is in monopolies, oligarchies, and keeping competition away through legislation, barriers to entry etc..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This just shows that you can't measure freedom of choice in dollars. Depending on who you ask, slavery was pretty good for the economy too.

</comment><comment><USER19> Majority of economist suck the tit of big corporations and big interests (the ones who ensure they're employed), news at 11.</comment>


The Gphone is coming; how Google could rewrite the rules - <AUTHOR> http://www.last100.com/2007/08/29/the-gphone-is-coming-how-google-could-rewrite-the-rules/

<comment><USER2> I think you can tell how successful product X is by the amount of "X killer" stories you run across with the "rewrite the rules" or "change the industry" type of hype. Google, make your phone. Microsoft, make your zune, your origami. Creative, make your $5 mp3 player. These people posting these link bait headlines and all this "could be 2008", "could have x" stuff, please.

I'd like to see a gphone. I'd like to see google release their operating system. Both products are periphery to their core competency of search it would give us a good chance to see how malleable they are.

But goodness am I tired of these speculative journalists.

OK, I'm truly sorry for posting this rant.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am as tired as speculative journalists as you are, specially around the Gphone and this is why I posted this.

Out of all the link-bait articles about the gphone, I thought this one had a good analysis and that the mock designs of the phone were interesting.</comment></comment>


Shear-thickening – A strange material may make protective helmets more so - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/07/30/a-strange-material-may-make-protective-helmets-more-so <comment><AUTHOR> [https://archive.vn/9bPNW](https://archive.vn/9bPNW)</comment>


Show HN: Artifact – scan photos easily on your iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://artifactapp.co/ <comment><AUTHOR> We had a few friends ask us to help them scan old photos that they have laying around, and it gave us the idea to build this app. It lets them scan their photos by themselves easily, without having to own a scanner, and without having to spend a lot of time on it.

We just released the first version to the App Store, and would love to get some feedback!</comment>


Intel under investigation over age discrimination in massive job cuts - <AUTHOR> https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/29/intel-under-investigation-over-age-discrimination-in-massive-job-cuts-reports-say/ <comment><USER3> If true, that's both sad and stupid. I've learned so much from my more senior engineers 10-20-30yrs older than me; everything from the "craft" of writing software, to better ways of debugging, to more practical software engineering methods, hell to how to deal with the business side. I can't imagine anyone with any real knowledge would can them.

The only valid reason to can older engineers is to reduce labor costs by both getting higher paid employees off the books and keep around the 23yr olds who will work 60hrs a week.

<comment><USER4> Keeping the juniors might not always be the best. You might find out just how much hand holding they got from seniors and reap the "benefits" then.

<comment><USER5> > Keeping the juniors might not always be the best.

The real issue is that the government isn't putting CEOs in prison for creating software with security issues, so companies are able to reduce their expenses by shifting the costs of bad software onto the general public.

<comment><USER6> do you really want to live in a world where founders can be put in jail for writing insecure code?

<comment><USER5> Yes. People can go to prison for malpractice in other areas, like medicine or civil engineering, why should software development be any different?

<comment><USER7> Because mind your own business, that's why.

Or do you _want_ to force the software industry overseas?

<comment><USER8> I'd rather people be held accountable for what they create, especially when it involves me, my stuff, or my data.

I'd rather firms like Equifax be regulated into the ground than get a free pass due to scaremongering. (coincidentally, Equifax is in an industry that will NEVER be forced overseas.)

<comment><USER7> All you want is a scapegoat for your bloodlust.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> 40 percent of those laid off were over 40.

Doesn't really sound bad considering over 50 percent of one's working life happens over the age of 40

<comment><USER10> You can't really evaluate if it was bad or not unless you know what percentage of the total workforce was over 40 before the layoffs. The lower that number is (below 40%), the more disproportionate the action was.

<comment><USER11> Yeah the math is a LOT more complicated than that. You just say say "only 25% of employees are 41+ therefore this was discriminatory" unless the goal of the layoffs is a normal distribution of ages company-wide, which I think is unlikely.

What departments were affects most? Was seniority a factor? Was pay a factor? Were certain projects, departments, or teams exempt from layoffs? Without having very detailed data about who was let go and what the justification was nobody can say whether it was discriminatory.

<comment><USER12> discrimination vs. discrepancy. I find it odd that many people jump to the first while simultaneously holding the belief that corporations only care about profit.

<comment><USER11> What do you meant as far as discrimination v. discrepancy? Just because numbers don't line up doesn't automatically mean there is nefarious intent. Corporations can care only about profit and still operate within the bounds of the law.

<comment><USER12> thats what I'm saying. many people jump to 'discrimination' when its merely a discrepancy. discrepancies exist everywhere for entirely benign reasons. furthermore, believing its discrimination for its own sake (like age discrimination) would contradict the belief that companies optimize for profit (which I don't think is a bad thing) since there no absolute causality there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> not sure how it is handled elsewhere but friends having gone through a reduction in force (the polite term) both gave me similar documents which listed affected positions and age of employee. no further details were given but in small enough shops its easy to know who is who. the interesting part is that they detailed all positions and not just those let go.

I have to assume that age discrimination is the easier one to hit on as the others are to blatantly obvious if they occur outside of government positions

<comment><USER14> The company makes those sheets up to show that they are not discriminating on age. [https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/discrimination/agedisc](https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/discrimination/agedisc)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't know their motivation but _if_ their goal was "fewest layoffs with most money saved short-term", it would be hard _not_ to bias layoffs toward more senior people. Senior, highest-paid employees don't _have_ to be the oldest but _probably_ are.

Of course, that isn't necessarily a good idea for other reasons (losing all that ingrained knowledge and experience, etc.). It would mainly make sense as a desperate short-term cost savings.

<comment><USER16> This is certainly possible, but I'd be a bit surprised if Intel was cutting costs that naively - I don't think they're as strapped for cash as the businesses that make this move.

When IBM did this, they were intentionally targeting age qua age - <USER2> internal documents set age/experience targets rather than salary ones, and claimed that a younger "tech-native" workforce would produce better results. Admittedly, they seem to have had some monetary motives too, but even those were shady: by firing older workers who couldn't get new jobs, they turned them into a pool of contract workers without pensions or benefits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I don't think anything will come of this, Intel I think has a pretty good cover. Internally it's no secret that one of the big criteria were the results of your most recent performance evaluation. If you received a certain stock grant that highlighted you for reduction -- however the kicker is only people of a certain pay grade could receive that certain stock level. Most people who are in that grade are at least 30 years old.

</comment><comment><USER18> Perhaps Intel made too many promotions based on time served and not merit and the cuts was a time to correct.

</comment><comment><USER19> Can someone explain to me why it is acceptable to force unwanted employees on company's payroll?

<comment><USER20> Is about discrimination, say if you have 2 employees A and B, you have to fire one of them, if you use criteria like who is more sexy,or race, or political views,religion or family relation then you are not fair and workers had to pay with their life in the past to have fair working conditions and some other groups again had to made sacrifices to have equal rights.

In this case maybe Intel is not guilty and the age issue is a correlation with the salary.

<comment><USER19> Ok, but how is that a problem? If employer doesn't want you, you look for another job.

<comment><USER20> Because only work related criteria should be considered, the employer should not ask for sex and decide who to keep based on sexual performance, or ask the employees to vote for X to keep their job.

The laws are in place because of bad behavior and were not created as a solution for a non existing problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm saddened to see Intel has taken a good gulp of the "Young people are smarter"-Kool Aid

<comment><USER22> It's actually established science that your fluid intelligence drops after hitting 30's, and the skills for certain tasks even earlier. It's sad, but it's dumb to deny biological reality.

[http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SBJ2KTl2f3c/VjPN9JeWLiI/AAAAAAAAVd...](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SBJ2KTl2f3c/VjPN9JeWLiI/AAAAAAAAVdo/fKBVoZw287o/s1600/Age- decline-in-intelligence.jpg)

[https://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/adultintelligence.jp...](https://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/adultintelligence.jpg)

[https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main- qimg-496a52a13eaee1e99f39e3...](https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main- qimg-496a52a13eaee1e99f39e3c9e4d5ec73-c)

<comment><USER23> It's somewhat taboo to mention that though. Reminds me of a Charles Murray's _The Bell Curve_ , which merely pointed out that various races have differing average intelligence. Despite clarifying that the standard deviation was much wider than any of the differences (so you cannot judge an individual based on the results), the author was shamed, blacklisted, and threatened for his work.

Some people just like to live in a fairy tale where how everyone _should be_ treated is the same as how everyone actually _is_.

<comment><USER24> Has anyone ever referenced that work and not been a complete racist piece of crap?

<comment><USER7> Charles Murray?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Idea: Random purchases, every week, on Amazon. - <AUTHOR>

I have a funny website idea. I looked into it a little bit and am not sure if it's possible, at least with Amazon.
The idea was to allow users to sign up and receive random items ordered off of Amazon.com once a week, month, whatever. The user wouldn't know what was ordered for them until it arrived.
Why? People enjoy receiving packages in the mail - it's fun.
You'd be able to sign up and pre-pay like $100, or however much, and specify your maximum item price-per-purchase. So you could say "do not buy items more expensive than $10". You could also specify the interval for purchases to be made - weekly, every other week, monthly, whatever. You could specify categories to receive items from - not like Books, Electronics, etc, but more like Technology, Fun, Random (ok, perhaps specify books, electronics, and stuff too). This idea would be even better if you didn't have to pre-pay, but could somehow allow the service to make purchases with your paypal account or something.
This wouldn't have any real purposes other than to have fun and receive random fun things in the mail.
Business model? Amazon will pay you for referrals. Perhaps even include tons of retailers and provide an unbiased selling platform for them.
I looked into this and was able to whip up a quick program that grabbed random items from Amazon and took into account categories. It doesn't look like it's possible to automate purchases on Amazon, though. I also don't know how you'd automate buying items for the user unless you made them pre-pay.
What do you think? Would be interesting, no? <comment><USER2> I think it would take too much curation to make sure people receive semi- useful stuff. Check out the results for various prices at this site for instance:

<http://www.filleritem.com/>

</comment><comment><USER3> Something like this? <http://xkcd.com/576/>

In fact, it turns out somebody has already built such a thing for TradeMe, the local New Zealand equivalent to eBay - see the Twitter feed of its purchases here: <https://twitter.com/trademe_xkcd576>

Now that I actually check the Twitter feed, it seems the same guy has created a public version at <http://mysterybox.co.nz/>

</comment><comment><USER4> There's a lot of junk on amazon that I wouldn't want...maybe it should be a smaller site like thinkgeek or something.

Kind of sounds like the woot bag of crap...</comment>


South Australian Visa for Entrepreneurs - <AUTHOR> https://www.fixe.org.au/visa-for-enterpreneurs <comment><AUTHOR> They don't seem to draw much attention to the availability pf 10Gbps broadband in Adelaide.

[https://www.cityofadelaide.com.au/business/ten-gigabit- adela...](https://www.cityofadelaide.com.au/business/ten-gigabit-adelaide/)

</comment><comment><USER2> Australia has _state-specific_ visas?</comment>