Sage v Cuban
- Thread starter dbmhoosier
- Start date
That’s not emotional. I’m trying to get the poor guy to understand he’s duped. 😉
I fully understand how you could think it’s emotion and of course there is some involved. I’m a Republican and I find him deeply embarrassing. However, my assessment of his fitness isn’t based on emotions.
Sure. I was an Engineer for three ships and the Chief Engineer on the third of those. Qualified in steam, diesel and gas turbine ships. Want to discuss some engineering like how to make potable water and produce electricity at sea? Maybe the basic steam cycle? Maybe how to make an engineering plant ready for sea? Maybe you should stay silent.
Can you allude to any specific posts or discussions of his that illustrate this intelligence you are insisting he possesses?
I really don’t have respect for ankle biters.
That’s exactly what’s going to happen, along with 100 fake polls from twitter he will reference.
Only tried once. Thought I was dying. Never again.
I wouldn't recommend listening to those suggestions via audiobook. You have to read them. Refer back to them. Think about them. Have a group to talk about it with. Otherwise, you aren't going to get much out of them.
I'd suggest instead trying Sophie's World, by Jostein Gaarder. That you could probably listen to, although again, I'd recommend actually reading it. But it'll give you easier access to the basic questions asked by philosophers of the West and some of the answers they've come up with.
You've only covered political philosophy there. No ethics, no metaphysics, no epistemology, no aesthetics.
You think too much like a lawyer . . .
@stollcpa he’s right. You won’t get much out of those on your own. I got my Bach in poly sci and political philosophy was a big part of it - the apology of Socrates, republic, Aristotle, metaphysics, ethics blah blah. You’d read them then the prof would pull things out abd the class would discuss. Prof was like an Ancient Greek. Wrestled. Power lifter. Cut chin. Looked like a statue. Anyway you can get complete works and basically versions with commentary so you understand ish what is being imparted. I’d get those versions to readYou've only covered political philosophy there. No ethics, no metaphysics, no epistemology, no aesthetics.
You think too much like a lawyer . . .
Golf by day, Joe Rogan podcast by night, all day!
Last edited:
What I've noticed with people with PhDs, MDs, etc is that a lot of them think that makes them more intelligent in every subject that is brought up when, in fact, they know more than the average person in their specialty. I was a systems analyst for years and was pretty good at it but I'm sure not gonna argue with you or goat when in comes to lawyerly things because I know both of you know a lot more than I do. I used to think I wanted to be a lawyer but after listening to you and goat I'm glad I didn't go down that path even though I find it extremely interesting.
My wife has a microbiology degree and I worked with organisms before becoming a computer nerd and I found that very interesting.
Some good suggestions here:
What are some good introductions to philosophy?
I've been searching the questions posed here, and don't seem to find one that gives the answers I am looking for. I've proposed to start a list on meta but no one proposed anything, so I feel I mus...
Also, it might be personal preference, but I find audiobooks difficult to follow and uninteresting compared to podcasts. People write and speak differently. So if you're just listening in your car, maybe try out some philosophy podcasts. There are plenty out there right now. Here are some good suggestions:
I agree with you. Most people think well in their particular field. Once outside it, they fall into the same traps the general public does. Some are able to transcend that, but they are few in number.
Lawyers generally benefit from a few things (I'm not saying this makes them the best thinkers or even better than all others and I'm not saying every single lawyer who has ever lived shares all of these traits. You could obviously also make a list of beneficial things for other types of education):
(1) selection bias via the LSAT for a certain type of logical ability.
(2) an education that focuses more on the meta-level analysis of their subject than the actual laws, etc. (dependent on law school and teacher) that includes studying the types and quality of authority; weighing various, sometimes contradictory, values; the importance of history and context (including the constant comparing of factual situations to sift out the main difference(s) between them).
(3) a profession that demands purposeful learning of a subject (science, medicine, etc.) within a restricted time frame that has real feedback, an adversary, and high stakes. I think that tends to focus the mind and creates an ability to find the main issue quickly and drill down on it while perhaps sifting through a mountain of information. The downside is that it can cause tunnel vision and an unjustified feeling of mastery over an entire area when really you've only mastered that one question needed for your particular legal dispute.
These three things translate to an array of subjects outside one's bailiwick more usefully than, for example, the scientific method.
To bring this into the stoll discussion re philosophy, though, I think the best education to "learn how to think" is a combination of philosophy and science (and/or economics). But of course, I'm biased--I studied philosophy and physics.
If you want to learn how to solve real-world problems, though, I'd go with engineering (which I would include computer science) and business (I really am not sure what "business" that would be--whatever the subject is where they do case studies?).
Purposeful learning and have the ability to learn fast. You’re doing a products case you need to understand engineering. Med mal medical procedures. Enviro tort like rfk Jr contamination or whatever the geo shit and the medical on the fly. For someone with a broad tort practice it’s a lot and you have to be able to learn things and understand them fast under adversarial conditions
I know this is probably not a good comparison but I ask an MD one time why he specialized in his field rather than being a GP and he said that he wanted to know a lot about one subject rather than a little about a lot of subjects. Depending on what kind of lawyer it is I would think that some would be like the GP... they know a little about a lot of subjects. Obviously they have to know enough about their specialty to do their job. I'm probably not explaining what I mean very well but if a lawyer is gonna try a medical malpractice lawsuit he or she must learn something about the medical field.
There's a limitation there, too: you're learning to teach, not learning to "do." You want to learn it well enough to then teach it in a way to the decision maker--judge or jury--that it colors it towards your preferred outcome. But you don't need to learn it in a way to actually perform whatever task it is.
Similar threads
